7./?' 23 


iFritm  ti}t  Uibrarg  of 

l^vttftBBOv  Sftttamttt  ^ntkmtih^t  Wnttxtih 

Mts\\xmtl:^th  by  Ijim  to 

tlyp  ICtbrary  of 

Pnnrftott  Sltpolojgtral  ^pttttttary 


i 


BS  651  .W38  1892 
Warring,  Charles  B.  1825- 

1907. 
Genesis  I  and  modern  sciencl 


GENESIS  1. 


AND 


MODERN  SCIENCE 


We  will,    If  you   please,   test  this   view   in   the   light   of  facts, — Prof. 
Huxley.,  N'ew  York  Lectures 

Hast  thou  appealed  unto  Caesar?     Unto  Caesar  thou  shalt  go. — Acts 


/ 

By  CHARLES  B.  WARRING,   Ph.D. 


AUTHOR  OF 


The  Miracle  of  To-Day :  Genesis  and  its  Critics ;  Miracle.,  Law,  and  Ez-o- 
lution  :  Geological  Clitnate ;  etc.,  etc. 

Metiiber    Neiu  York    Academy  of  Science,  Associate   Mcjnher   Philosophical 
Society  of  Great  Britain^  Member  Vassar  Brothers^  Institute 


NEW  YORK :  HUNT  &=  EATON 

CINCINNA  TI :  CRA  NSTON  &=  STO IV E 

1892 


Copyright,  1892.  by 
HUNT    &    EATON, 

New  York. 


TO 

ASTRONOMERS  AND  GEOLOGISTS, 

TO  WHOM  THE  WORLD  IS  INDEBTED  FOR  ALL  THAT  IS  KNOWN  OF  THE 

PRE-HUMAN    HISTORY    OF   OUR    GLOBE,    AND    FOR    THE 

POSSIBILITY  OF  TESTING  THE  TRUTH  OF 

THE   BIBLE    STORY   OF   CREATION, 

THIS    BOOK    IS 


3atsp{:£t{ull2  Sfbicatti. 


IT    ASKS     ONLY     FAIR     DEALING, 

AND     THAT    ITS     OWN     MISTAKES     SHALL     NOT     BE     CHARGED     TO     THE 

ACCOUNT   OF    WHICH    IT   TREATS. 

C.  B.  WARRING. 

POUGHKEEPSIE,    N.   Y.,  ) 

January  lo,  l8q2.      ) 


CONTENTS. 


PREFATORY. 


PAGE 

The  question  stated 9 

The  kind  of  jury  entitled  to  decide  it 9 

Professor  Huxley's  New  York  lectures 11 

The  flexibility  of  science 12 

Tlie  lack  of  a  brief  story  of  creation  by  scientists 14 

Dr.  Draper's  Conflict,  etc 15 

The  "  defense  by  the  Professor  weak  " 17 

As  to  a  change  of  inclination  of  the  earth's  axis 18 

This  story  resembles  annals,  and  not  memoirs 19 

Christians  sick  of  harmonies  and  reconciliations 20 

An  objection  by  a  Christian  scientist 23 

Is  literality  possible  ? 24 

A  fact  to  be  remembered,  namely,  that  Genesis  was  not  given 

to  teach  science 25 

A  chart  of  tlie  world's  history 27 


THE   PROFESSOR. 

Description  of  the  Professor 30 

The  extent  and  source  of  the  Professor's  knowledge  of  Genesis.  32 

Our  agreement 34 

The  rules  we  agreed  upon 35 

Dr.  Draper's  view  of  wha^t  a  revelation  should  do 37 


OUR   FIRST  EVENING.    Gen.   i,  1-B. 

Some  of  tlie  books  we  used 39 

Study  of  the  first  verse.     "  In  the  beginning  " 40 

Three  errors 42 

"  Without  form  and  void  " 43 

A  denial  which  would  be  fatal  to  nebular  hypothesis 44 


4  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Fourth  error 44 

Fifth  error 46 

"  And  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep  " 47 

Sixth  error.    "  Darkness  a  substance  " 48 

Same  origin  of  force  as  of  motion 49 

Seventh  objection.     No  such  early  waters 49 

Eighth  objection.     "  This  is  too  much  hke  the  Talmudists  " 55 

Ninth  objection.     "Verbal  agreements  with  science  are  mere  ac- 
cidents " 56 

Tenth  objection.     "  Light  pronounced  good  too  soon  " 57 

Tlie  order  here  a  matter  of  great  importance 59 

The  progress  from  universal  liglit  to  present  days  and  nights. . .  59 

Eleventh  error.     "  All  was  done  in  one  short  day  " 61 

Twelfth  error 66 

Thirteenth  error  (now  obsolete).     Light  placed  independent  of 

the  sun 67 


OUR  SECOND    EVENING.     Gen.  i,  6-8. 

Vitally  important  to  science  that  verses  1  to  5  should  be  true. . .  68 

Objection  14.     "  Moses  does  not  mean  exactly  as  he  says" 71 

Objection  15.     "  Matter  and  force  are  eternal  " 71 

The  story  from  geology  of  the  azoic  part  of  the  earth's  progress.  72 

What  phenomenon  marked  the  end  of  tiiis  stage  ? 74 

Objection  16.    "A  literal  Genesis  leads  to  an  absurdity,  namely, 

sun,  moon,  and  stars  were  somewhere  in  the  air  " 76 

Objection  17.     "  A  solid  firmament " 78 

Article    from  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  the   firmament,  a  full  discus- 
sion    79 

Eighteenth  error.    "The  expanse  made  in  twenty-four  hours  ".  .  94 

Objection  19.     Such  literalism  leads  to  absurdity 95 

The  firmament  not  pronounced  "  good,"  and  why  ? 96 


OUR   THIRD    EVENING.  Gen.  i,  9-13. 

The  ninth  verse.     The  land  and  water 98 

Wliat  geologists  say 99 

Twentieth  error.     "  Moses  says  the  dry  land  appeared  in  only  a 

few  hours  " 100 


CONTENTS.  5 

PAGE 

Note  on  the  completion  of  the  land 102 

"  Good."     Its  appropriateness  here 103 

Twenty-flrst  error.  "  The  order  is  wrong."  Moses  puts  the 
continents  before  any  plants,  and  all  plants  before  any  ani- 
mals, and  all  water  animals  and  birds  before  cattle  " 105 

Twenty-second  error.     "  Moses  puts  fruit-trees,  as  well  as  grass, 

before  the  sun." 107 


OUR    FOURTH    EVENING.     Gen.  i,  14-19. 
THE   FOURTH   PERIOD, 

Twenty-third  error.     "  The  place  of  the  sun  is  wrong  " 110 

The  difficulty  of  this  topic.     Solutions  proposed Ill 

My  course.     "  I  first  sought  to  know  just  what  it  was  that  Moses 

said" 114 

A  discussion  of,  "  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  "  114 
A  peculiar  Hebrew  idiom  in  the  use  of  lahmed  before  infinite. .   116 

Note.     Rosenmiiller  on  tliis  phrase 117 

What  was  done?     Change  of  inclination  of  axis lit) 

Two  scientific  objections :  (1)  All  forces  afifecting  the  inclination 
of  the  axis  are  compensative ;  (2)  with  axis  perpendicular 
polar  regions  would  receive  less  heat  rays  than  they  do  now.  123 

Present  inclination  unaccountable  by  science 124 

Proof  from  paleontology  of  such  change  near  the  close  of  ter- 
tiary     125 

The  occurrence  of  seasons  in  very  early  times  proved  by  existence 

of  early  growth  rings 128 

Answer  from  article   in   American  Journal  of  Science  proving 

"  rings  "  independent  of  seasons 128 


OUR    FIFTH    EVENING. 

THE  FOURTH  PERIOD  CONTINUED. 

The  command  to  the  "  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven". . . .   131 

"To divide."    For  signs.     Seasons 131 

Objection  24.     "  Seasons"  here  does  not  mean  tlie  astronomical 

seasons 133 


6  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Objection  24\     "  God  did  not  make  the  sun  so  late  " 138 

Objection    25.     "  Too   much   meaning   attached    to   the   words, 

'And  it  was  so  '  " 140 

Objection  26.  "  If  ihe  sun  was  not  made  after  fruit-trees,  etc., 
then  the  order  of  the  story  is  not  the  order  of  nature,  for 
the  story  speaks  of  sun,  moon,  and  stars  only  after  it  has 
spoken  of  those  plants  " 141 

Objection  27.     "Then  God   has  misled  people,  contrary  to  his 

truthfulness  " 143 

Objection  28.     "  Then  if  God  does  not  tell  of  the  creation  of 

these  in  the  fourth  period  he  has  left  that  out  altogether  ".. ,   145 


OUR    SIXTH    EVENING. 
THE   earth's    RAKK    IN   THE    UNIVERSE. 

Error  29.  "  Moses  regards  the  earth  as  the  center  of  the  uni- 
verse " 148 

Error  30.     Moses  says,   "Sun  and  moon  were  made  merely  to 

give  light  to  our  earth  " 149 

The  inhabitability  of  other  worlds 151 

Objection  31.     "  It  seems  absurd  that  the  sun  was  made  for  the 

little  earth  " 155 

Christ's  coming  here  is  a  greater  marvel  than  that 156 


OUR     SEVENTH    EVENING.     Gen.   i,   20-2S. 

ANIMALS. 

Objection  32.     "  The  world  thinks  this  story  means  that  before 

fishes  and  birds  there  was  no  life  at  all  " 153 

"  All  that  Moses  says  as  to  animals,  water,  air,  or  land  " 159 

De  la  Saporta's  evidence. 159 

Dana's  and  otliers 160 

"  Moses  says  nothing  of  the  first  introduction  of  life  " IGO 

Objection  33.     Organic  life  a  new  thing  on  our  globe 161 

Objection  34.     "  Moses  represents  animals  as  made  directly  and 

abruptly  from  earth,  air,  and  water  " 162 


CONTENTS.  7 

PAGK 

Abruptness,  an  eminent  characteristic  of  the  pjeological  record..  .   164: 

Objection  35.  "  Scientists  are  unwilling  to  admit  divine  interpo- 
sition " 166 

"  Ordinary  law  and  special  law  " 167 

Error  36.       "  In  error   placing  Adam  only  six  thousand  years 

back  " 168 

Error  37.  "  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  earth  is  flat  and  immov- 
able, and  that  tliere  are  no  antipodes  '' 170 

Objection  38.     "  This  is  not  the  Genesis  in  which  the  world  lias 

believed  " 171 

What  this  account  is 174 


OUR    EIGHTH    EVENING. 
THE   VERDICT — "GOOD." 

"  Good"  does  not  here  refer  to  moral  character,  but  to  use  or  fit- 
ness.    A  study  of  all  cases  where  it  occurs 178 

A  table  of  all  its  applications  and  omissions 184 


OUR    NINTH     EVENING. 

SUXDRY  IMPORTANT  MATTERS. 

The  "  days."     Theories  of 186 

The  fourth  commandment.  - 189 

An  historical  illustration  of  the  meaning  of  the  days 190 

Six  natural  stages  of  development 191 

What  this  chapter  really  is 1 94 

Dr.  Draper's  statement  as  to  what  a  revelation  should  do 196 

My  method  of  studying  this  account 198 

God's  purpose  iu  giving  it 200 

(1)  To  set  forth  his  Greator.ship 200 

(2)  To  impress  on  man  the  duty  of  observing  the  Sabbath 200 

(3)  To  set  forth  God  as  a  person,  and  not  mere  force 201 

(4)  To  authenticate  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible 20? 

"A  Hymn  of  Creation" 204 

Its  remarkable  character 205 


8  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

How  it  was  given  to  Moses 207 

A  resume,  of  tliis  story ,  „  „ 210 

List  of  errors  often  charged  to  this  account , . . .  212 

Gladstone's  and  Professor  Huxley's  articles  in  Nineteenth  Century.  212 


SUNDRY    PAPERS. 

Dr.  Draper's  test,  or  the  foreshadowings  in  this  story 214 

The  traditional  Genesis 217 

The  Babylonian  legend  of  creation  not  the  source  of  the  Bible 

account 221 

This  account  not  the  work  of  some  ancient  scientist 240 


GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE.* 


PREFATORY. 


"With  most  scientists  it  is  no  longer  good  form  to 
regard  the  first  cliapter  of  Genesis  as  any  thing  more 
than  a  poem,  the  work  of  a  wise  but  uninspired  man. 
High  authority  advises  the  "  students  of  science  no 
longer  to  trouble  themselves  with  these  theologies,  for 
their  statements  are  false  and  their  order  is  wrong." 

On  this  I  join  issue,  and  propose,  as  Professor 
Huxley  says,  "to  test  this  view  in  the  ^ury of  ex- 
light  of  facts."  t  As  the  questions  Perts  desired, 
which  arise  are  questions  in  astronomy,  geology, 
and  other  departments  of  natural  science,  nothing 
better  can  be  desired  than  that  they  should  be  de- 
cided  by   a  jury   of   experts    in    these   studies.      In 

*This  paper  originally  appeared  in  The  Living  Church.  It  has  been 
rewritten  in  part,  but  not  essentially  changed. 

f  "  Let  all  the  nations  be  gathered  together,  and  let  the  people  be 
assembled  :  who  among  them  can  .  .  .  show  us  former  things  ?  let  tliem 
bring  forth  their  witnesses,  that  they  may  be  justified:  or  let  them 
hear,  and  say,  It  is  truth." — Isa.  xliii,  9. 


10  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

trials  involving  commercial  law  it  is  desirable  to  get 
a  jury  familiar  with  its  principles.  In  questions  of 
maritime  law  experts  in  that  department  are  sought. 
In  questions  of  mechanics  or  engineering  men  who 
are  to  decide  them  ought  to  have  a  knowledge  of 
their  principles.  With  equal  justice  it  is  claimed  that 
men  acquainted  with  science  are  best  qualified — I 
should  say  ought  to  be  best  qualified — to  judge  of  the 
character  of  a  document  purporting  to  state  facts  in 
the  antehuman  history  of  our  world.  The  desirableness 
of  such  a  jury  needs,  however,  a  twofold  qualifica- 
tion. First,  that  the  "  science"  which  they  hold  is  itself 
true.  The  world  lias  seen  an  amazing  amount  of  "  sci- 
ence" which,  it  is  now  told,  is  rubbish;  and  it  very 
strongly  inclines  to  the  belief  that  much  which  is  held 
in  biology,  atomics,  and  other  metaphysico-physics  will 
eventually  prove  to  belong  to  the  same  class.  And, 
secondly,  they  must  be  so  clear-sighted  as  not  to  mis- 
take their  own  ignorance  for  negative  evidence,  since 
there  are  many  matters  of  which  science  as  yet  knows 
nothing.  They  must  also  be  so  honest  as  to  be  willing 
to  give  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  evidence,  even 
though  it  overturn  some  favorite  theory  or  tend  to 
establish  the  reality  of  that  "  impossible "  thing,  a 
revelation.  One,  for  example,  who  advocates  the 
nebular  hypothesis  and  scouts  theologians  for  not  ac- 
cepting it,  but  declares  Moses  contradicts  science  when 
he  says  that  the  earth  was  once  without  form  and  void  ; 


PREFATORY.  11 

or  one  who,  admitting  it  to  be  true  elsewhere,  that 
darkness  preceded  motion  and  that  motion  preceded 
light,  denies  it  in  the  story  of  creation,  is  too  much 
nnder  the  influence  of  prejudice  to  serve  on  such  a 
jury.     I  would  set  him  aside. 

It  would  only  he  following  the  example  of  every 
court  of  justice  to  require  the  jury  to  answer  simply 
guilty,  or  not  guilty,  or  the  Scotch  verdict  of  not 
proven,  to  each  count.  Did  the  judge  permit  each 
juror  to  make  a  speech  instead  of  uttering  a  simple 
yes  or  no,  the  matter  in  dispute  would  become  so  in- 
volved in  a  cloud  of  words  that  no  conclusion  would 
be  reached. 

A  very  serious  embarrassment  meets  us  at  the  start. 
Thei-e    is  no    authoritative   statement  in 

Professor  Hux- 

whicli  are  gathered  the  facts  which  will  ley's  New  York 
be  needed.  This  is  greatly  to  be  regretted. 
Feeling  this  keenly,  I  availed  myself,  a  few  years  ago, 
of  the  announcement  in  the  papers  that  so  high  an  au- 
thority, and  one  so  free  from  suspicion  of  theological 
bias  as  Professor  Huxley,  was  about  to  deliver  a  course 
of  lectures  in  New  York  on  matters  pertaining  to  the 
early  earth-history,  and  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Wew 
J^orh  Tribune^  from  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 
"I  am  sure  that  all  will  join  in  the  wish  that  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  would  give  an  outline  of  what  is  known 
of  the  antehunian  history  of  the  globe.  In  the  nature 
of  the  case  it  should  set  forth  only  the  most  salient 


12  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

points,  and  should  treat  solely  of  those  matters  as  to 
which  there  is  no  longer  any  doubt.  In  other  words, 
it  should  avoid  theories  and  state  facts.  It  would  not 
be  too  much  to  ask  the  distinguished  Professor  to 
clothe  his  account  in  simple  language,  that  those  not 
versed  in  science  may  understand." 

Tlie  motive  for  this  request  \vas  stated  to  be  a  de- 
sire to  compare  the  account  of  creation  given  by  so 
eminent  a  scientist  with  that  which  Moses  has  left  on 
record,  and  which,  right  or  wrong,  so  many  believe 
to  be  true. 

It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  Professor  Huxley 
did  not  comply  with  this  request.  Instead,  he  repeated 
the  story  of  creation  which  is  found  in  Paradise  Zost, 
adding,  with  ill-concealed  irony,  "  I  do  not  for  one  mo- 
ment venture  to  say  that  this  could  properly  be  called 
the  biblical  doctrine."  And  then,  referring  to  conflicts 
of  opinion  and  changes  of  exposition  among  writers 
on  Genesis,  he  adds  a  sneei-ing  fling  at  the  "  marvelous 
flexibiUty  of  the  Hebrew" — a  fling  which  comes  with 
peculiarly  ill  grace  from  a  scientist,  for  the  theories 
of  scientists  are  ever  changing. 

The  reader  will  find  no  difficulty  in  recalling  in- 
The"flexibiii-  stances  of  the  "flexibility"  of  science. 
ty "  of  science,  rp^  ^^^  nothing  of  old  examples,  one  of 
recent  date  will  suffice. 

A  few  years  ago  it  was  the  fashionable  "sci- 
ence"— for  "science"  has  its  fashions — to  say  that 


PREFATORY.  13 

the  different  races  of  men  could  not  have  descended 
fi'oni  one  pair.  It  is  easy  to  recall  the  ai'gunients 
so  glibly  used.  "  The  hair  of  the  Caucasian  is  specif- 
ically different  from  the  wool  of  the  Negro."  Then 
there  was  "  the  broad  shin-bone,  the  long  heel,  and 
tiie  thick  skull."  If  one  ventured  to  regard  tliese 
as  insufficient  he  was  sneeringly  told  that  no  one 
of  any  standing  as  a  scientist  believed  in  the  unity 
of  tlie  race.  It  was  clear  to  these  gentlemen  that 
the  "  anonymous  author  of  Genesis "  had  no  "  sci- 
ence," and  consequently  that  he  blundered  grossly 
when  he  represented  mankind  as  sprung  from  one 
pair.  Theologians,  as  usual,  showed  their  inability  to 
rise  above  their  traditions,  and  take  broader  and  more 
reasonable  views,  and  accept  the  true  "  scientilic  "  doc- 
trine that  the  human  family  was  descended  from  an 
unknown  number  of  independent  pairs.  So  at  least 
we  wei'e  told  again  and  again,  and  all  the  opponents 
of  revelation  said,  "  Out  upon  such  bigotry  and 
folly  !  " 

But  to-day  scientists  tell  the  world  that  "  After  all, 
men  have  originated  from  a  common  center,"  and 
then  a  vice-president  of  the  American  Association  for 
the  Advancement  of  Science  adds  the  fling,  "  And 
now  the  Church  is  no  better  satisfied."*  The  learned 
vice-president  well  knows  that  the  Church  is  not  dis- 

*  Proceedings  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science,  1876,  p.  145. 


14  GENESIS  LAND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

satisfied  with  the  conclusion  of  which  he  spoke,  but 
with  another  and  widely  different  one,  namely,  that 
men,  and  brutes,  and  plants,  too,  are  descended  without 
supernatural  help  from  some  one  or  more  original 
cells  which  somehow  got  into  existence — a  matter  of 
spontaneous  development,  as  if  the  refuse  of  a  lime- 
kiln should  turn  into  a  Yenus  de'  Medici !  It  may  bo 
that  I  am  blind,  but  it  seems  to  me  far  easier,  and  far 
more  in  accord  ,with  the  experience  of  mankind,  to 
believe  that  such  changes  are  the  result  of  intelligent 
will  i-ather  than  of  law  without  intelligence  or  will  to 
enforce  it. 

This,  however,  is  not  the  time  to  discuss  evolution. 
I  am  a  believer  in  it — for  example,  a  ship  from  a 
canoe ;  farms  from  prairies ;  the  telescope  from  the 
play  with  spectacles  of  the  Dutch  optician's  children  ; 
and  in  thousands  of  other  instances. 

But  I  have  wandered  from  Professor  Huxley  and  his 
lectures.  I  return  merely  to  say  that  he  ostensibly  left 
Moses  and  attacked  Milton,  but  with  the  assumption 
constantly  prominent  that  he  was  demolishing  the 
former. 

I  now  renew  the  request  made  in  the  JVew  Yorh 
Tribune — I  have  made  it  many  times — and  ask  any 
scientist  of  the  school  of  Professor  Huxley  to  give,  in 
his  own  way  and  in  plain  English,  the  early  history 
of  the  world.  I  ask  him  to  place  the  facts,  so  far  as 
known,  in  their  true  order,  and  beg  him  not  to  wander 


rREFATORY.  15 

away  to  matters  of  which  Genesis  says  nothing  ;  since, 
however  important  they  may  be,  they  would  distract 
the  reader's  attention  and  draw  him  from  the  question. 
If  such  a  history  shouhl  be  written  all  intellii^ent 
persons  could  see  in  what  consist  the  "  gross  errors  " 
of  Moses.  This  surely  is  not  too  much  to  ask  of 
those  who  are  constantly  lauding  "  science  "  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Bible.  But  I  fear  it  will  never  be  done. 
Is  it  not  time  that  those  who  scout  this  account  should 
do  something  more  than  talk  about  its  falsehoods  and 
come  to  particulars,  and  show  in  its  own  words  just 
what  it  is  that  is  contradicted  by  science  ?  It  will 
not  do  to  quote,  as  did  Professor  Huxley,  what 
Milton  or  Father  Suarez  says  Moses  said,  or  intended 
to  say.  No  court  of  justice  would  for  one  moment 
accept  such  evidence  when  the  original  documents 
were  at  hand. 

I  have  looked  in    vain  through  Dr.  Draper's  His- 
tory of  the  Conflict  between  Religion  and     ^    ^^^     . 
Science,  thinking  that  so  able  a  writer,      conflict  be- 

_  tween  Relig- 

who  had  become,  as  he  himself  assures  us,  ion  and  sci- 
"  accustomed  to  the  comparison  of  con- 
flicting statements,  the  adjustment  of  conflicting 
claims,"  would  tell  his  readers  plainly  what  it  is  in 
the  Mosaic  cosmogony  which  conflicts  Avith  science. 
The  indictment  which  he  has  drawn  does  not  meet 
the  expectations  excited  by  the  title  of  his  book.     To 

be  sure,  he  mentions  several    matters  about  which 
2 


16  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

there  have  been  fierce  disputes,  as,  for  example,  the 
length  of  time  since  the  creation  of  the  earth ;  the 
shape  of  the  world,  whether  flat  or  spherical ;  the 
existence  of  antipodes ;  whether  animals  died  before 
the  fall,  etc. ;  but  as  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  does  not 
say  one  w^ord  about  any  of  them  their  relevancy  is 
far  from  aj)parent. 

Although  Professor  Huxley  did  not  give  that  out- 
line of  the  world's  history  asked  for,  yet  he  placed 
upon  record  three  statements  of  great  importance  in 
this  discussion,  which  the  reader  will  do  well  to  bear 
carefull}'  in  mind.  He  told  his  hearers,  as  the  teach- 
ings of  the  most  advanced  science,  that  "  The  world 
had  a  beginning;"  and  that  "The  physical  form  of 
the  earth  can  be  traced  back  to  a  condition  in  which 
its  parts  were  separated  as  little  more  than  a  neb- 
ulous cloud,  making  part  of  a  whole  in  which  we 
find  the  sun  and  the  planetary  bodies  also  resolved  ;" 
and  that  "  All  that  is  now^  dry  land  was  once  at  the 
bottom  of  the  sea."  The  interest  in  these  statements 
does  not  arise  from  their  novelty,  but  from  their  clear 
enunciation  of  facts  essential  to  a  comprehension  of 
the  Mosaic  story. 

The  remainder  of  Professor  Huxley's  lectures  may 
or  may  not  have  been  in  harmony  with  the  actual 
history  of  our  planet ;  its  discussion  would  be  out  of 
place  here,  since  it  has  little  to  do  with  the  story  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  the  fossils  of  which  he 


PREFATORY.  17 

spoke  long  antedating  the  "  living  "  creatures  of  that 
account. 

In  this  essay  I  have  been  able  to  speak  of  only  a 
part  of  the  many  interesting  subjects  more  or  less 
directly  referred  to  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Gen- 
esis. A  few  years  ago  I  put  out  a  volume  entitled 
T/ie  Mosaic  Account  of  Creation,  the  Miracle  of 
To-day,  in  which  1  discussed  many  matters  not 
spoken  of  here.  The  j^resent  is  a  more  extended 
study  of  a  particular  portion  of  the  subjects  consid- 
ered in  that  book.  I  have  put  it  in  the  form  of  a 
conversation,  because  I  was  thus  enabled  more  easily 
to  bring  in  the  objections  which  have  been  made  by 
others,  or  which  have  occurred  to  myself.  If  the 
reader    thinks    the     *'  Professor "     offers 

.         The  Profes- 

a  weak  defense  of  his  side,  I  agree  with  sor's  weak  de- 
him.  But  I  submit  that  the  weakness 
is  inlierent  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  It  must 
be  remembered  that,  by  the  rules  which  we  adopted, 
lie  was  not  permitted  to  indulge  in  a  priori  disquisi- 
tions on  the  reality  of  miracles ;  or  on  the  possibility 
of  a  revelation ;  or  as  to  whether  we  can  know  any 
thing  of  God  ;  or  whether  the  second  chapter  of 
Genesis  contradicts  the  first ;  or  whether  Moses  wrote 
the  account,  or  Ezra ;  or  whether  there  were  two 
writers,  an  Elohistic  and  a  Jehovistic,  or  any  other 
matter  outside  of  these  two  questions :  Are  the  phys- 
ical statements  in  the  first  twenty-seven  verses  true? 


18  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

and  is  their  order  correct  ?     It  is  surprising  how  these 
limitations  cause  objections  to  disappear. 

Most  persons  seem  to  think,  when  they  have  devised 
a  scheme  by  which  to  obtain  the  time-space  needed 
by  astronomy  and  geology,  that  little  remains  to  be 
done  to  explain  the  whole  account.  This  is  a  great 
mistake.  There  are  in  it  many  other  questions  which 
demand  attention,  some  perhaps  even  more  difficult, 
as  will  appear  hereafter. 

At  first  it  may  appear  easy  enough  to  get  along  if 
we  hold  the  Mosaic  story  to  be  an  allegory ;  but  on 
a  fair  trial  such  an  hypothesis  will  be  found  to  in- 
volve more  difficulties  than  it  avoids. 

If  it  be  objected  that  certain  conclusions  in  tliis 
Conclusions  as  cssay  pertaining  to  the  inclination  of  the 
inciinauon  of  earth's  axis  have  not  been  adopted  by 
earth's  axis.  scientific  men,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I 
am  well  aware  of  it,  but,  nevertheless,  I  believe  them 
to  be  true.  They  were  in  no  case  made  to  force  a 
harmony  or  to  eke  out  an  argument,  but  rest  upon 
facts  and  reasons  which  seem  impossible  to  be  ex-^ 
plained  in  any  other  way.  The  most  important  of 
these  will  be  laid  before  the  reader  when  we  come  to 
consider  the  fourth  period. 

Whether  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  obliquity 
of  the  earth's  axis  since  the  middle  of  the  pliocene 
has  a  very  important  bearing  upon  the  explanation 
here  offered  of  the  work  of  the  fourth  creative  stage, 


PREFATORY.  19 

while  in  no  degree  aiiectino;  other  parts  of  the  nar- 
rative. And  if  my  proposed  exposition  slioiild  turn 
out  to  be  erroneous  it  would  merely  leave  the  fourth 
period  among  questions  which  await  solution. 

A  writer  in  the  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  who  favors  mj 
Mosaic  Account  of  Creation  with  a  notice, 

This  story  an- 

repeats,  with  apparent  approval,  the  re-  nais,  and  not 

1  «  /••nil  1  .      memoirs. 

mark  of  a  iriend  who,  lie  assures  Ins 
readers,  is  high  authority,  that  I  erred  in  comparing 
this  narrative  to  the  kind  of  history  called  annals. 
In  his  opinion  it  should  have  been  memoirs.  Why ! 
he  missed  the  most  important  point  in  the  argument, 
the  most  wonderful  thing  in  the  story,  its  correct 
order  !  "  Memoirs  "  might  do  well  enough  for  those 
who  hold  that  this  account  will  not  bear  too  close 
examination.  But  it  need  shrink  from  no  test,  how- 
ever severe.  The  accuracy  of  its  order  will  be  found 
to  be  the  crucial  argument  that  compels  belief  in  its 
divine  origin. 

That  I  have  rightly  solved  all  the  questions  which 
I  have  attempted  is  not  to  be  expected.  The  Mosaic 
story  of  creation  has  been  the  problem  of  the  ages. 
I  reverently  offer  this  as  a  contribution  to  its  solution. 
If  the  reader  finds  a  tithe  of  the  pleasure  in  its  perusal 
which  I  have  found  in  its  preparation  he  will  not 
regret  the  time  spent  upon  it.  Yet  he  must  not  ex- 
pect to  master  the  matter  without  study.  While  a 
hasty  reading  may  not  be  without  profit,  the  value  of 


20  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

the  return  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  time  and 
thought  spent  upon  it,  and,  I  may  add,  in  proportion 
to  the  reader's  knowledge  of  physical  science.  Of  no 
document  known  to  me  can  it  be  as  truly  said  that 
its  comprehension,  even  to  the  limited  extent  now 
possible,  is  in  itself  a  liberal  education  as  of  this  much 
contemned  and  often  unfairly  treated  first  chapter  of 
Genesis.  I  will  also  say  tliat  there  is  no  other  docu- 
ment of  equal  brevity  known  to  me  the  successful 
denial  of  whose  statements,  were  that  possible,  would 
result  in  consequences  so  disastrous  to  science  itself. 
The  reader  may  smile  at  this  as  the  words  of  an  en- 
thusiast, but  I  appeal  to  the  evidence  which  will  be 
produced  as  we  go  on. 

But  says   some  good  Christian   brother :     "  I  am 
"I  am  sick  of  ^^ck  of  liarmouies  and  reconciliations  of 

harmonies  and    ry  •  i        •  r^\^         i  i  ^  ±. 

reconciiia-  Genesis  and  science.  1  hey  have  brought 
tions.  derision  on  the  believers  in  the  Revelation. 

By  ignoring  some  parts  of  the  account  and  by  plac- 
ing great  stress  upon  others — by  a  liberal  interpreta- 
tion of  what  Moses  said  by  what,  in  their  opinion, 
Moses  meant  to  say — an  agreement  with  '  science  ' 
has  again  and  again  been  laboriously  forced.  But 
scarcely  were  things  '  fixed '  before  it  was  discovered 
that  the  '  science '  to  which  Genesis  had  been  twisted 
was,  after  all,  only  a  theory,  and  was  never  intended 
for  any  thing  more  than  a  convenience  to  string  facts 
on.     It  was  good  enough  to  attack  the  Bible  with, 


PREFATORY.  21 

but  of  no  value  if  taken  in  earnest ;  in  fact,  was  dis- 
proved by  some  later  discovery."  He  begins  to  think 
all  science  is  to  be  taken  in  a  Pickwickian  sense. 

Should  such  a  person  read  these  lines  I  would  re- 
mind him  that  if  this  story  be  really  from  God  its 
harmony  with  the  world's  history  must  become  more 
and  more  manifest  as  real  science  advances;  and, 
hence,  that  a  time  will  come  when  the  two,  so  far  as 
they  treat  of  the  same  subjects,  will  coincide.  It  is 
equally  true  that  if  men  form  theories  and  offer  ex- 
planations before  they  have  tlie  facts  on  whicli  to 
found  them  their  work  must  show  the  marks  of  their 
ignorance ;  and  it  ought  not  to  excite  surprise  that  so 
many  such  efforts  have  proved  to  be  of  no  value. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  certain  prominent 
theories  of  so-called  science — mostly  per-  Much    known 

...  .I'l  ii  •  iij.of    the  actual 

taming  to  biology  —  there  is  no  doubt  history  of  the 
that  vastly  more  of  the  world's  actual  ^^^^^' 
history  is  knowai  now  than,  for  example,  in  the 
days  of  Milton  ;  and,  consequently,  we  are  to  that 
extent  in  a  better  position  for  comprehending  the 
story  of  creation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  ac- 
count in  Genesis  were  of  human  invention  it  would 
easily  square  with  the  science  of  the  times  in  whicli 
it  was  written.  But  when  men  acquired  larger  and 
more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  past  it  w^ould  di- 
verge more  and  more  from  the  current  "science," 
until,  at  last,  the  contradiction  would  become  so  ap- 


22  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

parent  that  no  sane  man  could  accept  both  as  true. 
This  has  been  the  fate  of  all  cosmogonies  save  the 
Mosaic. 

The  question,  then,  is :  Has  the  science  of  to-day 
made  snch  progress  that  we  are  warranted  in  accept- 
ing any  of  its  conclusions  in  this  direction  as  abso- 
lute verities  ?  Have  we  any  facts  ?  A  very  brief 
survey  of  what  has  been  accomplished  will  convince 
the  reader  tliat  a  vast  number  of  facts  have  been  as- 
certained about  whicli  there  is  no  longer  any  room 
for  dispute.  Many  of  these  have  become,  as  it  were, 
a  part  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  our  every-day  thought, 
so  that  it  requires  an  effort  to  realize  that  sensible 
men  ever  believed  otherwise ;  as,  for  example,  that 
there  are  antipodes,  that  the  earth  turns  on  its  axis 
and  revolves  about  the  sun,  and  that  on  this  and  tiie 
inclination  of  the  axis  the  seasons  depend.  The 
school-boy  of  to-day  laughs  at  the  wisdom  of  Herod- 
otus, who  tells  his  readers  that  the  sun  goes  south 
every  autumn  to  escape  the  colds  and  storms  of  win- 
ter, and  returns  when  they  are  over.*  There  are 
many  other  facts  which  have  not  yet  reached  all 
minds,  but  which  are  as  universally  admitted  by  those 
who  have  given  attention  to  such  matters.     Now,  if 

*  "  During  the  winter  the  sun  is  driven  out  of  liis  usual  course  by 
the  storms,  and  removes  to  the  upper  part  of  Libya.  When  the 
winter  begins  to  soften,  tlie  sun  goes  back  again  to  his  old  place  in 
the  middle  of  the  heavens.'' — Rawli'iisun^ s  Herodotm. 


PREFATORY.  23 

we  take  such  accepted  facts  and  compare  with  thein 
the  statements  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  it  is 
evident  that  we  may  ascertain  whether  that  account 
and  the  world's  actual  history  agree  so  far,  providing 
we  neither  mistake  silence  for  contradiction  nor  al- 
low our  own  notions  to  modify  what  Moses  says. 
This  is  all  I  propose  to  do  in  this  book.  I  submit 
that  results  so  obtained  are  worthy  of  serious  consid- 
eration. 

While  writing  out  the  following  conversations  I 
endeavored  to  bring  into  them  all  the  objections 
which  would  be  appropriate  in  the  mouth  of  the  Pro- 
fessor ;  but  there  is  one  which  has  been  presented  by 
a  reader  of  my  other  book  on  this  subject  which 
does  not  belong  to  this  class.  This  gentleman,  a  warm 
Christian,  and  of  course  a  believer  in  revelation, 
writes  me :  "  I  think  it  is  forcing  the  simplicity  of 
Genesis  to  interpret  it  as  describing  with  any  sort 
of  scientific  accuracy  such  infinitely  complex  proc- 
esses as  those  involved  in  the  evolution  of  the  pres- 
ent state  and  relation  of  matter  and  force."  My 
friend  sets  up  what  he  supposes  a  serious  difiiculty 
in  the  way  of  accepting  my  exposition  of  Genesis, 
and  will  doubtless  be  surprised  to  know  that  I 
agree  with  him  that  such  an  interpretation  would 
be  forcing  the  simplicity  of  the  account.  I  see 
in  Genesis  no  attempt  to  describe  the  proc- 
esses of  nature.     I  read  that  there  was  light ;  that  an 


24  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

expanse  was  made  in  the  midst  of  the  waters ;  that 
tlie  waters  were  gathered  into  one  place,  and  that  the 
dry  land  appeared,  and  that  the  earth  brought  forth 
certain  kinds  of  vegetation ;  that  God  made  the 
lights ;  that  the  waters  brought  forth  water  ani- 
mals; that  the  land  bore  land  animals;  but  not  one 
word  do  I  see  as  to  "  the  infinitely  complex  processes 
involved." 

A  letter  before  me  asks  :  "  In  such  a  document  is 
Is  literaiity  literalitj  possible  ?  Could  the  events  have 
possible?  heen    described    by    man,   whoever    the 

coiiimunicator,  in  language  that  admits  of  literal  in- 
terpretation, considering  man's  imperfect  knowledge 
and  powers  of  apprehension  ? " 

To  this  I  answer:  The  possibility  of  a  literal  com- 
munication depends  u^Don  what  it  is  which  is  to  be 
communicated.  The  Hebrews  could  not  have  under- 
stood had  Moses  undertaken  to  tell  how  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  I  very  much  suspect 
he  would  have  no  better  success  now,  though  he 
had  lioyal  Societies  and  National  Academies  for  his 
audience.  But  the  single  fact  that  God  did  create 
the  heaven  and  the  earth  the  Hebrews  could,  and, 
I  may  add,  did,  understand  as  well  as  the  wisest 
moderns. 

The  nebular  hypothesis  would  have  been  incom- 
prehensible then,  and  is  largely  so  now  ;  but  that  the 
earth  was  once  formless  and  void,  a  fluid,  and  envel- 


PREFATORY.  25 

oped  in  darkness,  are  statements  not  difficult  to  com- 
prehend. Tlie  how  and  the  why  are  as  difficult  now 
as  then  ;  but  of  them  Moses  says  nothing. 

It  may  have  been  impossible  for  the  Hebrews  to 
understand,  no  matter  who  the  communicator,  how 
the  first,  or  any,  plants  were  made — a  matter  as  diffi- 
cult to-day  as  then ;  but  it  is  easy  enough  to  under- 
stand that  grass,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees  came  up  at  a 
certain  time  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Creator. 

So  in  regard  to  animals,  literality  is  easily  possible 
as  to  all  that  is  here  said.  Literality  presents  no  im- 
possibility so  long  as  we  do  not  leave  the  account ; 
and  what  other  kind  of  literality  is  conceivable? 

All  this  is  equally  true  of  what  we  call  natural 
phenomena,  l^othing  is  easier  to  understand  than  a 
statement  that  after  a  certain  number  of  days  of  in- 
cubation the  young  bird  comes  forth  from  the  e^g. 
We  may  watch  the  process  and  note  the  successive 
changes  ;  and  the  more  intense  our  literalism  the 
easier  will  our  description  be  understood,  and  the 
greater  be  its  value  as  material  for  the  science-mill  of 
the  biologist ;  but  the  how  and  the  why  that  underlie 
it  all  will  be  unintelligible,  and  perhaps  will  always 
remain  so. 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  Bible  was  not 
given  to  man  to  teach  him  science.  Inci-  ^  (act  to  be 
dentally,  as  it  were,  it  contains  a  vast  remembered. 
amount  of  physical  truth,  but  that  is  a  very  different 


26  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

matter.  The  heavens  contain  all  the  truths  of  astron- 
omy, and  the  rocks  all  of  geology  ;  but  it  was  very  long 
before  there  was  a  science  of  astronomy,  and  geology  is 
only  of  yesterday.  The  story  in  Genesis  speaks  only  of 
those  things  which  all  men  see,  and  teaches  that  God 
made  them.  This,  it  says,  was  the  origin  of  the 
heavens  above  them  and  the  earth  and  sea  beneath,  of 
the  transparent  expanse  above  and  around  them,  of 
sun,  moon,  and  stars,  of  the  vegetation  spread  out  on 
every  side,  of  the  cattle,  of  wild  beasts,  of  birds,  and  of 
the  monsters  of  the  sea.  As  to  all  else  the  account  is 
silent.  It  does  not  speak  of  the  laws  of  gravitation, 
or  of  light,  or  of  sound.  Nor  does  it  speak  of  intelli- 
gences of  higher  and  more  ancient  order  than  man, 
those  sons  of  God  who  shouted  for  joy  when  he  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  earth,  nor  of  the  long  sncces- 
sion  of  geological  horizons  with  plants  and  animals 
preceding  and  unlike  these  contemporaneous  with  man. 
This  principle  of  contemporaneity  with  the  human 
race  seems  almost  too  evident  to  need  argument.  It 
fits  in  with  every  part  of  the  story  and  brings  all  into 
order.  The  neglect  of  it  by  Mr,  Gladstone  in  his 
Nineteenth  Century  debate  with  Professor  Huxley 
enabled  the  latter  to  win  an  easy  victory. 

I  cannot  help  again  expressing  my  regret  that  Hux- 
ley, or  Tyndall,  or  Dr.  Draper,  or  some  other  author- 
ity in  physical  science  among  those  who  have  called 
this  story  a  myth,  has  not  aided  us  in  forming  a  true 


PREFATORY.  27 

estimate  of  its  character  I)j  cleai-lj  and  distinctly 
setting  forth,  in  simple  language,  his  own  version  of 
the  matter,  placing  each  event  in  its  proper  order. 

Fortunately,  we  all  have  access  to  tlie  results  of  the 
labors  of  those  who  are  eminent  in  all  that  pertains 
to  our  earth's  history,  and  so  can  make  out  for  our- 
selves what  will  serve  our  pm'pose  nntil  they  shall 
give  us  something  better. 

As  an  appropriate  prelude  to  the  discussion  of  the 
Mosaic  account,  a  chart  of  the  world's  a  chart  of  the 
history  has  been  prepared  for  the  benefit  ^^•"''Wsbistory. 
of  those  who  may  not  liav'e  time  or  opportunity 
to  study  up  for  themselves. 

It  divides  naturally  into  two  parts.  The  first  in- 
cludes the  immeasurable  period  between  the  "  begin- 
nins  "  and  the  time  when  our  earth  reached  the  non- 
luminous  condition.  In  this  long  interval  the  solar  sys- 
tem was  formed.  Toward  the  end  of  it  the  sun  shone 
as  brightly  as  now,  and  the  earth  and  other  planets  re- 
volved around  it  and  on  their  axes  essentially  as  at 
present.  During  that  period  the  earth  was  intensely 
liot,  like  the  sun,  and  consequently  self-luminous.  In 
this  part  of  the  chart  the  reader  will  find  set  down  in 
chronological  order  certain  great  facts  pertaining  to 
what  may  be  styled  the  embryonic  period,  when  the 
earth  was  in  progress  from  primordial,  shapeless  mat- 
ter, to  the  present  rounded,  non-luminous  planet. 

The  remainder  of  the  chart  includes  the  time  from 


28  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

the  end  of  the  first  period  to  the  creation  of  man.  It 
begins  with  the  first  day  on  our  planet — not  the  first 
revolution  on  its  axis,  but  the  first  alternation  of 
light  and  darkness,  or,  as  we  say,  day  and  night.  In 
the  earliest  part  of  this  immense  stretch  of  time  there 
was  a  long  period  of  which  geology  knows  but  little. 
There  were  boiling  waters  and  dense  clouds  exclud- 
ing the  sun.  There  was  no  life,  vegetable  or  animal. 
It  was  a  true  azoic  age,  and  forms  part  of  what  geol- 
ogists have  styled  "  archsean  time." 

In  the  first  column  on  the  left  of  the  chart  are  the 
Mosaic  periods.  In  the  second  column  are  the  names 
of  geological  divisions,  themselves  divided  into  four 
great  groups  called  Archaean,  Paleozoic,  Mesozoic, 
and  Cenozoic  times.  In  the  third  column  is  set  forth 
the  gradual  emergence  of  the  land  from  the  universal 
ocean  to  present  continents.  In  the  fourth  are  shown 
the  stages  of  production,  or  develojDment,  of  the  veg- 
etable kingdom.  The  fifth  column  sets  forth  the 
progress  of  animal  life  from  the  protozoa  to  man. 
In  the  sixth  is  given  the  climate  of  the  geological 
periods. 

The  figures  in  parentheses  refer  to  pages  in  Dana's 
Manual  of  Geology,  edition  of  1880,  to  which  the 
reader  will  do  well  to  refer.  Indeed,  I  can  hardly 
speak  too  strongly  of  the  importance  of  his  getting 
that  work  and  turning  to  the  references  and  reading 
up  for  himself.     At  the  least,  if  he  would  get  much 


PREFATORY.  29 

good  from  these  pages,  he  must  familiarize  himself 
with  tlie  names  of  the  geological  divisions  mentioned, 
and,  above  all,  fix  clearly  in  his  mind  the  place  of  the 
cretaceous,  the  three  divisions  of  the  tertiarj — the 
eocene,  miocene,  and  pliocene — and  the  quaternary, 
including  the  glacial  epoch,  the  Champlain,  and  the 
recent. 


3U  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


THE    PROFESSOR. 


Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  recorded  in 
these  pages  it  will  be  in  oi'der  to  saj  a  few  woi'ds 
about  the  one  who  takes  the  role  of  opposer,  and  who 
is  called  the  Professor. 

Before  our  acquaintance  he  spent  a  part  of  tlie 
summer  at  the  house  of  an  old  classmate  of  mine,  who 
described  him  as  follows.  Afterward  I  found  the 
description  sufficiently  accurate. 

''  The  Professor,"  said  m}^  friend,  "  has  little  faith 
in  any  thing  but  physical  plienomena  and  tlie  laws 
deduced  from  them.  He  does  not  believe  either  in 
miracles  or  revelation.  lie  considers  them  impossi- 
bilities, or,  as  he  would  sometimes  say,  '  things  inca- 
pable of  proof,  and,  therefore,  a  waste  of  power  on  the 
part  of  the  Almighty,  even  if  they  did  roally  occur.' 
His  ability  to  conceive,  he  says,  marks  the  limits  of 
his  belief ;  consequently  he  denies  the  existence  of 
a  personal  God. 

"He  is  an  admirer  of  Mr.  Spencer,  and  of  others  of 
the  same  way  of  thinking.  In  his  opinion  tliey  ai'e 
the  great  lights  that  are  to  enlighten  the  world.     He 


THE  PROFESSOR.  31 

gives  to  their  philosophy  the  faith  which  he  refuses 
to  the  Bible.  With  Buckle,  he  believes  that,  upon 
the  whole,  religion  has  been  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
human  progress.  He  is  fond  of  saying  that  there  has 
always  been  a  conflict  between  rehgion  and  science, 
and  that  religion  has  always  been  in  the  wrong.  When 
doubt  as  to  this  is  expressed,  he  at  once  cites  the 
Mosaic  account  of  creation,  and  declares  as  a  matter 
not  to  be  questioned  by  any  one  whose  opinion  is  en- 
titled to  respect  that  it  is  irreconcilable  with,  and,  in- 
deed, flatly  contradicted  by,  the  superior  knowledge 
of  the  present  day." 

Some  weeks  after  this  letter  was  received  the  Pro- 
fessor came  into  our  neighborhood,  and  it  was  not  long 
before  we  met.  As  our  studies  and  tastes  were  simi- 
lar we  had  no  lack  of  topics  of  mutual  interest,  and 
we  spent  many  pleasant  hours  in  discussing  them. 
For  some  time  I  saw  little  to  indicate  the  aggressive 
belief  of  which  my  friend  had  written  me ;  but  one 
evening,  as  we  were  sitting  in  my  library  conversing 
about  the  wonderful  progress  which  geology  and 
astronomy,  and,  indeed,  all  departments  of  physical 
science,  had  made  during  the  last  half  century,  he  be- 
gan to  speak  about  the  need  of  more  completely 
throwing  off  the  shackles  of  old  superstitions,  and  of 
the  debt  which  mankind  owed  to  science  for  its  assist- 
ance in  this  great  work,  and  especially  for  having  so 
clearly  proved    the  falsity   of   the   fable  called   the 


32  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

Mosaic  account  of  creation,  adding,  "  False  in  one, 
false  in  all." 

There  was  in  his  manner  something  of  that  offen- 
sive air  of  superior  wisdom  which  Buckle,  Spencer, 
Iluxlej,  and  others  so  often  assume  toward  those  who 
believe  in  the  Bible.  It  touched  me  for  a  moment, 
until  I  reflected  that  it  belonged  not  to  the  man  but 
to  his  school.  I  had  my  doubts,  too,  whether  he 
knew  so  much  about  that  chapter  as  his  positive  way 
of  speaking  seemed  to  indicate.  So  I  smothered  a 
little  natural  feeling  and  asked  if  he  had  ever  read  it. 
He  replied,  "  Every  body  knows  what  Moses  says ; 
but  I  do  not  depend  upon  my  own  reading  in  this 
matter  as  much  as  upon  the  account  given  of  it  by 
those  who  profess  to  be  its  special  friends  and  ex- 
pounders. Their  theories  and  explanations  I  have 
read,  and  to  some  extent,  studied.  They  have  given 
it  so  much  thought  and  labor  that  I  aui  sure  they  have 
made  it  as  plausible  and  as  consistent  with  nature  as 
possible.  But  I  find  what  they  say  so  contrary  to 
what  I  know  to  be  true — their  explanations  so  absurd, 
and  the  whole  matter  so  false — that,  as  a  scientific 
man,  I  cannot  believe  the  story  itself,  nor  the  book 
which  pretends  to  authenticate  the  story.  Its  claim 
to  be  from  an  all-wise  and  truth-loving  God  is  simply 
absurd." 

To  this  I  answeied  that  I  was  as  unable  as  liimself 
to  accept  a  falsehood  as  a  revelation  from  God,  but 


THE  PROFESSOR.  S3 

that  for  my  own  part  I  did  not  look  upon  this  chapter 
as  a  falsehood ;  that  this  question  of  truthfulness  was 
one  of  great  importance ;  that  although  at  first  it 
might  appear  fair  and  even  generous  to  accept  as  its 
true  meaning  the  theories  and  explanations  of  its 
friends,  yet  such  a  course  might  lead  to  erroneous  re- 
sults, since  they  were  not  authorized  to  speak  for 
Moses,  and  it  was  quite  possible  that  they  were  so 
limited  in  their  knowledge,  or  so  filled  Muth  false 
science,  that  however  good  their  intentions  they  could 
not  comprehend  the  truth,  no  matter  how  clearly  it 
was  stated.  If  it  should  turn  out  that  they  have  at- 
tributed to  Moses  any  thing  not  belonging  to  him, 
common  justice  requires  that  he  should  not  be  held 
responsible.  And,  furthermore,  since  the  Hebrew  is 
the  only  authority,  if  there  is  apparent  error  the  nar- 
rative is  not  to  be  condemned  on  that  account  unless, 
on  a  fair  examination,  it  shall  appear  that  the  ti'ansla- 
tion  correctly  represents  the  original.  I,  for  one,  did 
not  believe  in  any  conflict  between  Genesis  and  truth, 
however  it  miglit  be  as  to  "  science."  Indeed,  as 
"  science  "  has  always  been  very  incomplete,  and  more 
or  less  mixed  with  error,  it  was  to  me  no  small  pre- 
sumptive evidence  of  the  divine  origin  of  tlie  Mosaic 
cosmogony  that  no  one  had  been  able  to  make  it 
square  with  past  "science." 

It  is  only  within  the  life  of  the  present  generation, 
I    added,  that  science    has  reached  a    position   suffi- 


34  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

ciently  advanced  to  enable  us  to  see  the  agreement  be- 
tween the  story  and  the  actual  history  of  our  world. 
In  short,  tlie  science  of  to-day  lias  barely  attained 
some  of  those  heights  of  knowledge  which,  for  thou- 
sands of  years,  have  been  held  by  this  account. 

My  words,  I  knew,  sounded  to  him  extravagant, 
but  I  spoke  with  a  full  sense  of  their  meaning,  and, 
if  he  was  willing,  I  would  gladly  go  with  him  through 
this  chapter  and  compare  its  statements  with  facts  as 
they  have  been  made  known  by  astronomers,  geolo- 
gists, and  others. 

The  Professor  shook  his  head  incredulously,  but 
after  a  little  consented  to  make  the  experiment. 

I  suggested  that  it  would  be  well  to  lay  down  cer- 
tain rules  for  our  guidance,  that  our  conversation 
The  limits  of  might  not  be  led  off  into  collateral  mat- 
andfiirruTesof  ^^^^-  ^c  probably  had  his  opinion  as  to 
exegesis  which  whether   Moses    wrote    this   account.      I 

we  agreed   to 

adopt.  saw   no   good   reason    for   reversing   the 

voice  of  antiquity ;  but  this  was  not  the  question  we 
proposed  to  consider,  as  it  had  no  bearing  on  the 
truth  of  the  story  itself.  Therefore  we  would  not 
discuss  the  authorship,  but  start  with  the  self- 
evident  fact  that  the  account  exists  now,  and  has 
existed  for  several  thousand  years.  For  conven- 
ience, but  not  as  adopting  any  theory,  we  might 
speak  of  it  as  the  Mosaic  account  and  of  Moses  as 
the  author. 


THE  PROFESSOR.  35 

As  rules  to  govern  ns  in  our  investigation  I  thought 
the  following  no  more  than  fair  : 

Words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  usual  sense,  and  the 
storj  allowed  to  mean  just  what  it  sajs. 

It  is  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  what  any  one 
has  inferred  that  Moses  intended  to  teach. 

Last,  but  not  least,  silence  is  not  denial. 

To  all  this  the  Professor  readilj  agreed. 

I  then  added  that  for  the  present,  at  least,  our  dis- 
cussion should  not  include  any  other  part  of  the  Bible, 
for  certainly  the  difficulties,  or  ei'rors,  as  he  might  es- 
teem them,  which  Colenso  and  others  think  they  have 
discovered  elsewhere  have  no  bearing  upon  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis. 

At  first  he  demurred,  saying  that  these  things  had 
weight  with  him  if  not  with  me,  and  he  thought  we 
were  in  no  condition  to  pronounce  an  opinion  upon 
the  Bible  if  we  left  all  the  rest  out. 

I  reminded  him  that  our  object  now  was  not  to 
decide  upon  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  but  only  of  the 
first  chapter.  This  was  written  long  before  the 
rest  of  the  book,  and  was  true  or  false  independently 
of  it.  Our  only  business  at  present  was  to  detei-- 
mine  whether  it  was  veritable  history  or  a  myth. 
Afterward,  if  he  chose,  other  matters  could  be  con- 
sidered. Moreover,  I  proposed,  if  he  were  willing, 
to  confine  the  discussion  to  the  first  twentj'-seven 
verses  of  the  chapter.     I  desired  this  limitation  be- 


86  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

cause  it  was  impossible  for  tradition  to  give  Moses 
any  account  of  things  which  occurred  before  uian 
appeared,  and  these  verses  were  concerned  wholly 
with  such  events. 

Some  who  have  discussed  this  story,  and  arrived  at 
conclusions  unfavorable  to  its  truthfulness,  have  based 
their  results  upon  what  seemed  to  them  contradic- 
tions between  the  first  and  second  chapters.  Otliers 
claim  that  it  was  taken  from  the  Chaldeans.  Both 
these  questions,  however  important  in  themselves,  are 
of  no  consequence  so  far  as  the  line  of  investigation 
which  I  proposed  to  follow  is  concerned.  The  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  is  true  or  false,  without  reference 
to  the  second;  and  if  I  admit  (which  I  do  not)  that 
somebody  got  the  story  from  the  Chaldeans  and 
foisted  it  into  the  Bible,  whatever  other  effect  such 
an  admission  may  have  it  has  none  upon  our  ques- 
tion. The  statements  here  are  true  or  false,  no  mat- 
ter where  they  came  from. 

The  Professor  had  no  objection  to  these  limitations. 
.  Certairdy  the  statements  in  the  first  chapter  are  true 
or  false  whether  they  are  contradicted  by  those  in  the 
second  or  not,  or  whether  they  came  from  the  Chal- 
deans. He  was  willing  to  go  into  the  matter  as  thor- 
oughly as  possible,  although,  to  be  frank,  he  thought 
it  rather  a  waste  of  time. 

I  then  called  his  attention  to  Dr.  Draper's  views  as 
to  what  a  revelation  should  do,  and  read  the  following 


THE  PROFESSOR.  37 

from  liis  Intellectual  Develojpment  of  Europe^  and 
asked  what  he  thought  of  it : 

"  Considering  tlie  asserted  origin  of  this  book,*  in- 
directly from  God  liimselt*,  we  might  justly  expect 
whatareveia-  '^^'^^  i*  would  bear  to  be  tried  by  any 
tion  would  do.  standard  that  man  can  apply,  and  vindi- 
cate its  truth  and  excellence  in  the  ordeal  of  human 
criticism.  ,  .  .  As  years  pass  on  and  human  science 
becomes  more  exact,  more  comprehensive,  its  con- 
clusions must  be  found  in  unison  therewith.  When 
occasion  arises  it  should  furnish  us  at  least  the  fore- 
shadowing of  the  great  truths  discovered  by  astron- 
omy and  geology,  not  offering  for  them  the  wild 
fictions  of  earlier  ages,  the  inventions  of  the  infancy 
of  man." 

The  Professor  thought  this  a  severe  test,  but  he 
saw  no  reason  why  he  should  object.  It  seemed  to 
him  incredible  that  God,  the  Creator,  the  embodiment 
of  all  knowledge,  should,  if  he  spoke  at  all  of  the 
creation,  do  otherwise  than  state  facts,  nor  could  he 
conceive  of  any  end  to  be  gained  by  giving  them  in 
any  other  than  their  true  order.  It  would  seem  most 
natural  to  relate  things  one  after  another  just  as 
they  occurred,  and  the  true  order  would  present  no 
greater  difficulty  to  the  minds  of  the  Hebrews  than 

*  Dr.  Draper  is  speaking  of  tlie  Koran,  but  iiis  words  are  better 
than  he  knew,  and  I  adopt  tliem  as  a  fair  test  of  the  Mosaic  story  of 
creation. 


88  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

any  other.  Sncli  a  series  of  stateinents  would  neces- 
sarily foreshadow  discoveries  which  tlie  future  was 
to  make,  and  which,  it  is  highly  probable,  are  not  all 
made  yet.  The  lack  of  such  foreshadowing  would, 
as  Dr.  Draper  intimates,  be  indicative  of  another 
origin — one  that  was  not  divine. 

As  this  accorded  with  my  own  views  I  made  no 
reply. 

We  then  agreed  to  meet  the  next  evening  in  my 
library,  and  so  it  was  our  discussion  began. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  39 


OUR    FIRST    EVENING. 


T  HE      THEME. 

Genesis  i,  1-5.* 

1  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth. 

2  And  the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void; 
And  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep. 

And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  luaters. 

3  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light:  and  there  was  light. 

4  And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good  : 
And  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness. 

5  And  God  called  the  light  Day,   and  the  darkness  he  called  Night. 
And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day. 

The  Professor  was  promptly  on  hand.  I  had  pre- 
pared for  the  occasion  by  laying  on  my  table  certain 
books  which  I  thought  would  be  needed.  Among 
them,  and  most  important,  were  a  Hebrew  Bible, 
Lexicon,  and  Concordance ;  a  copy  of  the  Septuagint 
and  our  English  Bible ;  Dana's  Manual  of  Geology, 
and  Herschel's  Outlines  of  Astronomy,  and  quite  a 
number  of  other  books  on  geology,  spectroscopy,  etc. 
As  he  took  his  seat  he  glanced  over  the  tal)le  and 
said,  "  This  looks  like  business  ;  but  1  do  not  see  any 
counnentaries  on  the  Bible. "f 

*  The  Common  Version,  except  as  to  divisions  into  paragraphs. 
In  the  course  of  these  discussions  will  be  found  such  criticisms  on 
the  common  rendering  as  I  may  liave  to  ofEer. 

f  I  had  examined  a  number  of  commentaries,  but  found  little  in  them 
for  our  present  purpose,  and,  theicfore,  did  not  lay  tliem  on  my  table. 


40  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

I  replied  that  perliaps  tliey  were  more  essential  to  his 
arguments  than  to  mine  ;  that  all  that  I  was  concerned 
with  was  the  words  of  Moses  himself,  and  those  I  pro- 
posed to  take  in  their  simplest  and  most  literal  meaning. 
Otliers  had  told  iis  what  Moses  meant  to  say  ;  my  pur- 
pose was  to  let  him  tell  his  own  story  in  his  own  way. 

The  Professor  thought  that  seemed  fair  enoneh. 

I  then  took  up  the  Bible  and  read  :  "  In  the  begin- 
ning God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  and 
asked  whether  that  were  true. 

He  replied,  "  Undoubtedly  tliere  was  a  beginning 
of  the  present  order  of  thino^s  *  and  the 

A  beginning.  >  "  ^ 

universe  must  have  originated  in  an  Ulti- 
mate Cause — that  is,  in  the  will  of  God.  Many  per- 
sons, however,  do  not  believe  in  a  personal  God. 
They  would   say,   '  In   the    beginning   the   ultimate 

*  "  All  modern  science  seems  to  point  to  the  finite  duration  of  our 
system  in  its  present  form." — Professor  Xewcomb,  Popular  Astron- 
omy, p.  489. 

Professor  Tait,  in  his  Recent  Advances  in  Pliysical  Science,  p.  22, 
says  :  "  It  (the  principle  of  the  Dissipation  of  Energy)  enables  us  dis- 
tinctly to  say  that  the  present  order  of  things  has  not  been  evolved 
tlirough  infinite  past  time  by  tlie  agency  of  laws  now  at  work,  but 
must  have  had  a  distinctive  beginning,  a  state  beyond  which  we  are 
totally  unable  to  penetrate ;  a  state,  in  fact,  wliicli  must  have  been 
produced  by  other  than  the  now  visibly  acting  causes." 

And  again,  on  page  26,  "All  portions  of  science,  and  especially 
that  beautiful  one,  the  Dissipation  of  Energy,  point  unanimously  to  a 
beginning." 

The  philosophy  which,  to  avoid  tliis  conclusion,  talks  about  a 
straight  line  returning  upon  itself,  and  of  space  which  has  four  or 
more  dimensions,  is  worthy  of  those  agnostic  scientists  who  talk  of 
worlds  where  two  and  Iavd  mav  iiiako  five. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  41 

cause  produced  the  heavens  and  the  earth.'  They 
would  object  to  this  expression,  '  The  will  of  God.'  "  * 
I  replied  that  for  my  part  I  had  no  objection  to 
liis  styling  the  Author  of  all  things  the  Ultimate 
Cause,  or  the  First  Cause.  I  was  a  believer  in  a  per- 
sonal God,  but  whether  on  good  grounds  or  not  was 
outside  of  our  discussion,  since  that  question  had  no 
bearing  upon  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  physical 
statements  in  these  twenty-seven  verses.  They  com- 
mence their  account  at  the  ''  beginning,"  and  you 
admit  that  there  was  a  beginning;  our  ^^^  ^^^^^,^ 
next  business,  therefore,  is  to  inquire  what  pnmordiaicon- 

ditioa. 

was  the  condition  of  the  earth  at  the  ear- 
liest period  at  which  philosophy  takes  cognizance  of  it. 

Laying  his  hand  upon  the  astronomy  lying  before 
him,  and  turning  over  its  leaves,  he  answered,  "  La- 
place improved  and  gave  anew  to  the  world  the  theory 
which  commonly  goes  by  his  name,  and,  as  far  as  I 
can  see,  it  gives  a  true  description  of  our  world's 
original  condition.f 

"According  to  that  great  astronomer  and  mathe- 
matician the  solar  system  existed  at  that  time  only  as 
a  mass  of  infinitely  attenuated  matter,  something  like 
gas  or  vapor.  The  earth  then  was  an  integral  pai't 
of  that  immense  nebulous  body,  and  consequently  had 

*  Some  say,  an  unconscious  intelligence  (!)  produced  all  things. 

f  "  Original,"  so  far  as  philosophy  can  tell  us.  It  is  the  point  at 
which  the  mind  stops  when  tracing  back  the  chain  of  causes  and 
leaps  to  the  iuthiite. 


42  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

no  more  form  or  shape  than  has,  for  example,  a  ton 
of  water  in  the  clouds  which  darken  the  sky  before 
a  rain.  The  clouds  have  shape  and  form,  however 
irregular,  but  any  one  ton  among  the  thousands 
which  they  contain  has  none. 

"  It  is  easy,"  lie  continued,  "  to  see  in  this  the  supe- 
riority of  science  over  Genesis,  for,  according  to  all 
the  commentators  who  have  not  been  shamed  out  of 
it  by  scientists,  Moses  says  the  world  was  called  at 
once  into  being,  a  vast,  solid  globe,  incomparably 
larger  than  the  sun  and  stars.  Here  is  one  of  those 
contradictions — an  important  one,  too — which  compel 
scientists  to  refuse  to  believe  this  story. 

"  In  fact,  here  are  three  errors.  He  says,  or  at  least 
Three  errors  in  hnplies,  that  the  world  was  called  suddenly 
Genesis.  ^j^j.^  existence.     This  is  an  error,  for  the 

world  was  millions  of  years  in  making.  He  regards 
it  as  solid  from  the  start.  We  know  tliat  it  was  once 
gaseous,  then  molten,  and  not  solid  till  long  after. 
His  third  error  is  as  to  size.  The  carrh  is  not  larger 
than  the  sun  and  the  stars." 

Stop  a  moment,  I  replied.  Where  does  Moses  say 
"  the  world  was  called  at  once  into  existence  a  solid 
globe  ?  "  Where,  too,  does  he  say  that  "  it  is  larger 
than  the  sun  and  stars  ?  "  I  handed  him  the  Bible  ; 
he  ran  his  eye  up  and  down  the  page,  and  then  said  : 
"  I  do  not  see  it  in  so  many  words,  but  certainly 
it   mnst  be  implied,  and   Moses  himself   nmst  have 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  43 

thought  SO,  or  else  so  many  commentators  would  not 
have  given  out  that  idea  to  the  world." 

I  reminded  him  that  Moses  was  responsible  only 
for  his  own  words,  and  certainly  his  account  should 
not  be  pronounced  false  for  what  is  not  in  it. 

I  added  that  I,  too,  believed  that  our  earth  was 
once  a  gas  and  then  molten.  It  was  worth  noting 
that  it  would  not  be  easy  even  now,  with  all  our 
knowledge  and  with  the  help  of  a  copious  scientific 
terminology,  to  describe  the  earth's  condition  while 
yet  an  unsegregated  part  of  a  vast  nebulous  mass,  in 
more  fitting  terms  than  those  which  Moses  has  used, 
and  which  are  rendered  in  our  version  "  without  form 
and  void."      These  words  are   tohu    and 

•  .  Meaning  of 

oohu.  Tohu  occurs  twenty  times  in  the  "tohu "and 
Bible.  It  is  rendered -yam^y  in  the  phrase, 
"  less  than  nothing  and  vanity  /  "  and  in  "  he  maketh 
the  judges  of  the  earth  as  vanity;  "  and,  "  they  that 
make  a  graven  image  are  all  of  them  vanity ;  "  and, 
"  they  trust  in  vanity P  "  Ye  go  after  vain  things." 
"I  have  spent  my  strength  for  nanglitj''  Qio,.  What 
more  accurately  descriptive  word  can  be  found  for 
matter  ten  thousand  times  less  dense  than  air  ? 

JBohu  occurs  but  three  times,  and  is  rendered  in 
each  place  by  void.,  or  its  equivalent,  emptiness. 

It  is  perhaps  not  easy  to  gather  into  one  word  the 
meaning  that  runs  through  and  connects  all  the 
meanings  of  toliu  :   in   connection  with   hohu   it  is 


44  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

exquisitely  applicable  to  the  infinitely  attenuated,* 
nebulous  matter,  impalpable,  invisible,  amorphous, 
void  even  of  cosmic  organization,  the  unshaped  raw 
material  of  future  sun  and  planets.  Whether  we 
thus  derive  a  version  for  ourselves,  or  whether  we 
accept  the  less  literal  English,  "  without  form  and 
void,"  matters  little  for  my  argument ;  but  where 
would  Laplace^s  nebular  hypothesis,  and  the  cosmic 
The  denial  of  theories    of    our    agnostic    friends    based 

the  once  "tohu,     .i  i  i  i     xi  i         -r 

bohu"  condi-  tliereou — where  would  these  be  it  our 
tion  fatal  to  the   g^.^]!  never  was  in  the  condition  described 

nebular  hy- 
pothesis, by  these   words  ?      Would   not    the    suc- 
cessful denial  of  that  one  clause  annihilate  them  all? 
The    Professor    hesitated    a    moment,    and    then 
frankly  said:   "Every  believer  in   any  form  of  the 
nebular    hypothesis    must    admit    that    this    clause, 
somehow,  does  describe  a  condition  which  once  ex- 
isted.     If  Moses  really  meant  what  his  words  uow 
seem  to  say,  that  sentence  is  true.     But  he  meant  no 
such   thing,  and  had  no  idea  that  such  a 
meaning  would  be  attached  to  them.     He 
thought   that   some   six    thousand    years    ago    or   so 

*  If  the  matter  now  in  the  solar  system  formed  at  that  time  a  sphere 
extouding  only  to  Neptune  it  must  liave  been  four  hundred  million 
times  rarer  tliari  air  at  the  eartJi's  surface  now — about  as  near  nothing 
as  the  human  mind  can  conceive ! 

It  must  be  retnembered  that  tlie  essence  of  the  nebular  liypotliesis 
is  that  the  earth  and  all  the  solar  system  were  in  a  gaseous  condition. 
As  to  how  they  got  into  tlie  present  arrangement  opinions  differ. 
It  is  only  the  once  gaseous  stale  that  we  are  here  concerned  with. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  45 

the  earth  was  in  a  condition  fitly  described  by  ta/m 
and  bohu.  We  know  it  was  not  in  such  a  condition 
six  thousand  years  ago,  nor  ever,  except  millions  of 
years  ago,  while  it  was  part  of  a  nebulous  mass — 
something  of  which  he  had  not  the  slightest  knowl- 
edge, and  therefore  he  could  not  have  referred  to  it. 
Hence  he  really  erred,  although  his  words  chance  to 
describe  a  condition  that  did  once  exist." 

To  this  I  replied  :  We  need  not  argue  about  that. 
I  am  willing  to  admit  that  Moses,  like  many  others 
of  the  prophets,  did  not  fully  comprehend  the  mean- 
ing of  his  utterances ;  *  vei-y  probably  he  had  many 
erroneous  notions.  This  is  not  at  all  the  question 
which  we  are  considering.  Here,  in  this  chapter,  are 
certain  physical  statements,  however  they  came  ;  and, 
whatever  Moses  or  the  Hebrews  may  have  thought 
about  them,  I  propose  to  inquire  wliether  they  hap- 
pen, if  you  prefer  that  word,  to  describe  real  condi- 
tions or  transactions,  and  let  other  matters  take  care 
of  themselves. 

The  Professor  admitted  the  justice  of  this,  but  said 
he  had  been  so  accustomed  to  the  other  view  that 
he  found  it  difficult  to  rid  himself  of  it. 

I  suggested  that  hereafter  he  should  say  of  a  state- 
ment that  it  was  true  or  false,  and  not  qualify  his 
words  with  conjectures  as  to  whether  Moses  meant 
what  he  said. 

*  1   Pet.  i,  10. 


46  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

To  this  he  assented.*     After  a  moment's  pause,  he 
added :  "  Are  you  not  assuming  that  the 

Objections.  It  _  _  ''  _  " 

says  the  world  condition  spoken  of  as  '  without  form  and 

was  made  only  .    ^     .     , 

six  days  before  void    was  ahnost  infinitely  remote,  instead 

Adam.  „    ,     .  ,  .  .    . 

01  being,  as  the  account  m  my  opinion 
clearly  intimates,  only  six  common  days  before 
Adam?  and  this,  too,  contrary  to  the  voice  of  all 
antiquity  ?     Is  not  this  tampering  with  the  account  ? " 

I  replied  that  I  assumed  nothing  as  to  the  time,  but 
had  simply  asked  whether  the  words  "  without  form 
and  void"  did  not  correctly  describe  the  nebulous 
condition;  and  wliether,  if  the  eartli  never  was  with- 
out form  and  void,  it  could  ever  have  been  part  of  a 
nebulous  mass. 

If  he  closely  examined  the  account  he  would  see 
it  was  he  that  put  into  it  an  unauthorized  statement 
when  he  said  that  Moses  teaches  that  the  formless 
and  void  condition  preceded  the  creation  of  Adam 
only  six  days.  It  is  true  that  Moses  speaks  of  six 
days,  but  he  does  not  say  (1)  that  this  condition  im- 
mediately preceded  the  first  day,  nor  (2)  that  the 
days  followed  each  other  in  immediate  succession,  nor 
(3)  that   they  were  common  days.     "Whether  these 

*  Although  the  Professor  agreed  not  to  make  use  of  tliat  objection- 
able expression,  yet,  as  the  reader  will  see  as  the  conversation  con- 
tinues, he  was  unable  to  keep  his  promise.  In  truth,  the  assertion 
that  Moses  does  not  mean  what  he  says  lies  at  the  bottom  of  so  many 
explanations  on  the  one  side,  and  so  many  objections  on  the  other, 
that  taking  it  away  destroys  almost  the  whole  of  them. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  47 

propositions  are  true  the  account  does  not  say.  They 
are  open  questions,  to  be  determined  from  the  study 
of  all  the  facts  involved. 

The  Professor  made  no  reply  except  that  this  was 
a  new  way  to  study  Genesis,  although  he  must  admit 
it  was  common  enough  in  every  branch  of  science. 
In  short,  it  was  letting  theories  wait  upon  facts,  and 
to  that,  as  a  scientific  man,  he  had  no  objection. 

I  continued :  The  account  thus  far  being  admitted 
to  describe  actual  conditions,  we  will  pass  to  the  next 
sentence.  Moses  says,  "And  darkness  was  upon  the 
face  of  the  deep,"  *  and  not  till  after  that  does  lie 
speak  of  the  imparting  of  motion.  Tell  me  if  this  order 
be  not  scientifically  correct— darkness  before  motion. 

*  Tlie  deep :  tehohm.  This  word  carries  with  it  a  sense  of  profound 
depth  and  mystery.  It  is  applied  to  the  sea,  but  with  reference  to 
its  depth  ratlier  th:m  its  nature  as  water.  The  sense  of  mystery  is 
always  an  element  more  or  less  prominent.  Job  xxviii,  14:  "The 
deep  (dopih)  saith,  It  is  not  in  me  ;  and  the  sea  saith,  It  is  not  in  me." 
Here  it  is  not  the  sea,  but  is  contrasted  with  the  sea.  "  Ye  dragons, 
and  all  ckep.s  "{depths),  Psa.  cxlviii,  7;  and  again  in  Deut.  xxxiii, 
13:  "Blessed  of  the  Lord  be  his  land,  for  the  precious  things  of 
heaven,  for  the  dew,  and  for  the  deep  that  coucheth  beneath."  "The 
Almighty  shall  bless  with  the  blessings  of  heaven  above,  blessings 
of  the  deep  that  lieth  under"  (Gen.  xlix,  25).  It  is  a  strange  and 
mysterious  depth,  whether  of  the  earth  or  of  the  sea.  The  Septuatrint 
sought  to  express  this  double  meaning  by  "  abj'ss,"  and  to  some  extent 
it  is  foinid  in  our  word  "  the  deep."  If  applicable  to  the  ocean,  how 
much  more  to  such  a  deep  as  that  nebulous  matter  yet  inert  nd  dark, 
a  deep  whose  profundity  the  mind  is  powerless  to  measure,  although 
we  may  express  it  in  figures?  Its  depth,  as  astronomy  tells  us,  was 
greater,  by  some  unknown  amount,  than  the  radius  of  Neptune's  orbit. 
It  was  more  than  twenty-eight  hundred  millions  of  miles. 
4 


48  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

''  Certainly,"  lie  replied  ;  "  light  is  well  known  to 
be  a  mode,  or  perhaps  more  properly  a  result,  of  mo- 
tion, and  before  motion  there  could  have  been  no 
light  whatever,  but  only  darkness.  I  have  been 
Objection  6.  told,  liowever,  that  the  darkness  of  which 
!'  i*^'''^'^<^f       Moses  wrote  was  somethino;  quite  diflfer- 

is    a    sub-  i^     i- 

stance."  g^t,  uot  a  mere  absence  of  light,  but  itself 

a  positive  entity  ;  that  certainly  is  absurd."  * 

I  agreed  that  such  a  statement  M^ould  be  absurd,  but 
as  Moses  did  not  make  it,  and  was  in  no  degree  responsi- 
ble for  what  people  said  about  him,  I  did  not  see  the 
relevance  of  the  remark.  He  put  upon  record  what 
he  had  to  say,  and  it  was  unjust  to  charge  him  with 
error  because  pseudo-scientists,  many  centuries  after 
his  death,  tacked  these  falsehoods  to  his  words.  Here, 
then,  I  added,  is  one  verse  which  does  somehow 
"  chance  "  (?)  to  describe  conditions  which  once  really 
existed,  and  to  place  them  in  their  true  order. 

*  Lange  talks  about  "Latent  lights  material  darkness."  See  his 
Commentary  on  Genesis,  p.  188. 

It  may  be  thought  useless  to  refer  to  the  absurd  things  which  ex- 
positors have  said  in  the  name  of  what  tiiey  call  "  Science."  But  it 
is  these  tliat  have  made  the  creative  story  an  offense  to  all  who  have 
even  a  smattering  of  true  science,  and  have  driven  away  niultitudea 
of  thinking  men,  or  compelled  them,  with  Mr.  Roreson,  to  be  ieve 
tiiat  God  inspired  Moses  to  write  what  seems  a  history  of  the  crea- 
tion, but  which  was  never  intended  to  be  such,  but  is  only  a  hymn 
setting  fortli  in  poetical  language  God's  creatorship. 

Tliose  who  would  see  what  absurdities — stones  in  place  of  bread — 
are  oifered  the  biblical  student,  will  find  an  astonishing  illustration  in 
Lange's  Genesis,  pp.  188,  189,  and  beyond.  No  quotation  can  do 
justice  to  the  "science"  there  displayed! 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  49 

He  replied  :  "  If  what  Moses  sajs  is  to  be  taken 
literally  I  cannot  ol)ject ;  but,  then,  nobody  thinks  of 
his  meaning  exactly  wliat  he  says.  Undoubtedly  tliis 
verse  is  a  poetical  description  of  something  in  his 
imagination,  and  it  merely  happens  to  describe  condi- 
tions which  really  existed." 

Well,  Professor,  I  said,  if  these  prove  to  be  the 
only  coincidences  possibly  your  explanation  may  be 
right.  We  will  see.  At  present  we  will  go  on  with 
the  account.     How  do  you  account  for  motion? 

"  I  cannot  account  for  it,"  he  answered.  "  I  can 
only  attribute  it  to  the  First  Cause  that,  as  Moses 
says,  created  the  heaven  and  tlie  earth ;  and  as  I  see 
he  does  the  same  I  am  content  to  admit  he  is 
right."  * 

"  But  Moses  says  this  '  moving'  was  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters.  There  were  no  water's  wiien  obiection  7 
the  earth  was  in  a  nebulous  condition,  con-  ^o    waters 

when  the  earth 

sequently  he  could  not  have  referred  to  was  in  nebu- 
that  state,  and  if  so  your  explanation  fails." 

I   have    more  than  once,    I    replied,    found    what 

*  It  is  curious  to  note  that  the  pariicular  kind  of  motion  with  which 
science  specially  occupies  itself,  and  to  which  are  attributed  most 
of  the  processes  of  nature,  is  specifically  described  by  the  word  here 
used  to  denote  the  divine  act.  It  is  a  throbbing,  pulsative  motion ; 
or,  in  more  scientific  phrase,  an  undulating  movement.  It  is  used 
elsewhere  but  twice :  ■'  All  my  bones  shake  "  (Jer.  xxiii,  9) ;  "  As 
an  eagle  fluitereth  over  her  young"  (Deut.  xxxii,  11).  Dr.  Tayler 
Lewis  says  that  the  verb,  being  here  in  tlie  Piel,  only  intensifies  this 
idea. 


50  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

seemed  to  mc  an  error;  but  tlie  apparent  contradic- 
tion disappeared  when  I  turned  from  what  people  say 
Moses  said  to  his  own  words,  and  took  them  in  their 
most  radical,  and  consequently  their  most  ancient, 
meaning.  The  Hebrew  possesses  a  descriptive  power 
which  modern  languages  have  lost,  or,  perliaps  it 
would  be  better  to  saj,  never  had.  In  the  infancy  of 
the  race  things  were  nan:ed  from  some  real  or  appar- 
ent quality.  This  mode  of  naming  is  still  found  in 
chemistry  and  in  other  departments  of  science ;  but 
instead  of  taking  words  from  our  own  tongue  we  bor- 
row from  Greece  and  Rome.  Tiius  we  have  oxygen, 
the  acid-maker ;  hydrogen,  the  water-malier ;  fluid, 
that  which  jlows,  the  opposite  of  solid.  This  last 
term,  fluid,  we  apply  indifferently  to  water,  air,  the 
ether,  and  to  all  non-solids.  Now,  you  know,  or  can 
Meaning  of  easily  learn  from  the  lexicon,  that  this 
mahyim.  word  rendered  waters,  mahyini,  is  the  ex- 
act equivalent  of  our  word  Jluid,  for  it  also  comes 
from  a  root  signifying,  according  to  Gesenius,  '  to  be 
fluid,  to  flow.'  * 

Rendering  the  Hebrew,  then,  with  the  strictest 
possible  adherence  to  its  radical  sense,  we  have  : 
"  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of" 
something  (whatever  it  was)  which  could  flow,  and 
was  moiile,  7ion-solid. 

*  Mahyim  is  applied  to  at  least  three  other  fluid  substances.  See 
this  word  in  Gesenius,  Lexicon. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  51 

"  But,"  interrupted  the  Professor,  "  why  did  not 
Moses  use  some  other  word  to  indicate  tlie  highly  dif- 
fused, attenuated,  fluid  condition  of  the  primordial 
matter  instead  of  one  so  likely  to  mislead  as  mah- 
yim  ?  " 

Because  there  is  no  other  word  in  the  Hebrew 
that  so  well  describes — or  describes  at  all  Hebrews    had 

11,  i.        tj.  i.  1  no    word    for 

— a  gaseous  body  at  rest,  it  must  be  re-  ^^^^  ^j.  ^q^  ^j^ 
membered  that  the  important  obvious  ^'■r^*'- 
characteristics  of  tlie  primordial  matter,  before  mo- 
tion had  been  imparted,  were  its  fluid,  ether-like  con- 
dition and  the  absence  of  motion.  The  Hebrews  had 
no  word  for  air  or  gas.  The  nearest  approach  to  it 
was  ruah^  but  that  is,  through  and  tlirough,  a  noun 
of  motion.  It  is  wind  or  breatli,  but  never  air  at  I'est. 
I  added  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between  tlie 
appositeness  of  the  Hebrew  mahyim  and  our  modern 
word  "  nebulous,"  as  applied  to  such  matter,  very 
much  to  the  advantage  of  the  former.  Ours  is  the 
word  of  a  child  who  looks  no  deeper  than  the  sur- 
face, and,  because  he  sees  something  which  looks  like 
a  bit  of  fog  or  mist  in  the  sky,  calls  it  a  nebula, 
which  Webster  defines  to  be  a  Latin  word  "  signify- 
ing mist,  vapor,  a  cloud."  Mahyim  is  a  name  which 
one  would  give  who  knew  thoroughly  the  nature  of 
that  of  which  he  spoke,  and  hence  was  able  to  select 
a  word  denoting  a  most  important — perhaps  its  most 
important — characteristic.      In    fitness  of  nomencla- 


52  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

ture,  in  this  instance  at  least,  modern  science  lags  far 
behind  the  author  of  this  story. 

I  then  called  his  attention  to  the  manner  in  which 
Moses  describes  tlie  primordial  condition.  It  is  im- 
palpable, without  form,  as  it  were  nothingness  ;  that  is 
tohu.  It  contains  nothing,  is  void  of  land  and  sea,  of 
plants  and  animals  ;  that  is  ho/iu.  It  is  enveloped  in 
darkness — darkness  covers  it.  It  is  the  profound, 
awe-inspiring,  mysterious  deep  ;  that  is  tehohiti.  It  is 
at  rest,  but  not  a  solid,  it  is  mobile,  a  fluid  ;  that  is 
mahyhn,  on  which  the  Ruah  Elohim — the  Spirit  of 
God — was  about  to  move.  I  asked  if,  with  all  the 
wealth  of  our  English  tongue  and  its  unlimited  right 
to  draw  upon  the  languages  of  Greece  and  Rome,  he 
could  do  better. 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply,  but,  evading 
"On  the  face  111  J  question,  said  :  "  Moses  says  '  upon  the 

of  the  waters."    f  i?  j.i  „i.         ?  j.  j.i 

tace  ot  the  waters,  or,  to  use  the  meaning 
nearest  to  its  radical  signification,  '  upon  the  face  of 
the  fluid  mass.'  IN'ow,  'on  the  face'  cannot,  so  far 
as  I  can  see,  mean  atn'  thing  else  than  '  upon  the 
outer  surface.'     How  do  j'ou  explain  that  ?  "  ■* 

*  The  Professor  being  a  firm  believer  in  the  nebular  hypothesis,  we 
did  not  speak  of  certain  matters  which  will  suggest  themselves  to 
the  reader.  Scientific  men  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  mode  in  which 
our  system  was  produced  from  the  gas-like  matter.  Some  think  that 
the  rotary  motion  began  at  the  center ;  others  that  it  arose  from  the 
center-ward  movement  of  the  atoms,  and  that  the  planets  were  not 
tlirown  off,  but  were  left  behind  in  the  form  of  rings  as  the  inner  parts 
sliraiik   toward  the  grand  center;  others,  again,  say  that  while  in 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  53 

I  am  not  able  to  explain  the  mystery  of  the  be- 
ginning of  force  and  motion.  All  that  1  dare  at- 
tempt is  to  take  the  facts  of  our  world's  history  as 
science  has  made  them  known,  and  compare  them 
with  what  I  find  here  in  the  story  itself.  This  I  may 
do  without  irreverence  or  presumption.  Perhaps, 
however,  the  little  that  is  known  may  cast  some  light 
even  on  that  phrase.  If  we  go  back  into  the  past 
to  the  period  preceding  the  segregation  of  the  nebulae 
we  find  matter  infinitely  diffused,  and  in  a  state  of 
rest  or  equilibrium.  That  there  was  a  time  antece- 
dent to  existing  motions  is  evident,  because  these  all 
tend  to  use  up  the  present  store  of  force,  or  at  least 
to  turn  it  into  heat,  and  to  transfer  that  to  the  ether. 
A  loss,  however  small,  going  on  from  all  eternity 
would  have  exhausted  the  vis  viva  of  the  universe 
countless  ages  ago.  It  is  diflicult  to  conceive  of  mat- 
ter at  rest  except  it  be  uniformly  diffused  through 
space.  Then  the  mutual  attractions  would  neutralize 
each  other. 

Or  it  may  be  that,  at  first,  matter  existed  without 
attraction  between  its  atoms,  and  then  it  would  have 

one  of  these  ways,  or  in  some  way  not  yet  thought  of,  the  planets 
were  formed  from  diffused  nebulous  matter  at  some  inconceivably  re- 
mote period,  they  were  afterward  largely  added  to  by  accretions  of 
meteoric  matter.  All,  however,  are  agreed  that  our  globe  was  once 
molten,  and  they  are  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  unanimous  tliat  it  was 
once  in  a  gaseous  condition.  Whichever  of  these  theories  is  true, 
its  central  fact,  the  gas-like  state  of  the  earth,  is  well  described  by 
the  language  of  Moses. 


54  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

no  tendency  to  move.  The  ether  seems  now  to  be  in 
that  condition.  It  possesses  elasticity  and  inertia, 
but  not  gravitation.  Such  a  condition  of  equilibrium 
or  rest  would  never  come  to  an  end  of  itself,  much 
less  generate  a  solar  system.  There  was  needed  some 
external  disturbing  force  to  give  the  first  impulse. 
Of  this  science  gives  no  explanation,  but  is  forced  to 
be  content  to  refer  it  to  the  first  cause.  Moses  does 
the  same.  It  was,  lie  says,  the  Spirit  of  Grod  that 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  fluid  substance — that  is, 
from  without.  It  may  be,  too,  that  the  phrase  refei's 
to  that  remote  fact  not  yet  clearly  seen,  but  which  is 
indicated  by  science,  namely,  "  the  addition  of  the 
forces  to  tlie  substratum  of  matter  which  has  resulted 
in  the  present  multiplicity  of  elements."  *  Beyond, 
I  dare  not  venture  a  conjecture.     There  I  leave  it. 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply.  We  sat  a 
few  moments  in  silence.  I  do  not  know  what  was 
passing  in  liis  mind.  As  for  myself,  I  was  revolving 
the  question,  IIow  does  spirit  act  upon  matter?  and 
then  tliis  unthinkable  fact  of  existence,  not  that  of 
God  only,  but  my  own  and  that  of  the  universe.  It 
was  a  temptation  to  wander  off  into  such  fields  of 
speculation,  but,  remembering  the  limits  within  which 
we  had  agreed  to  keep,  I  put  it  aside  for  a  more  con- 
venient season. 

The  Professor  spoke :  "  But  are  you  not  becom- 

*  See  Professor  Cook's  New  Cheinistry. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  55 

ing  like  the  Talraiidists,  who  find  occult  meanings  in 
every  word,  and  mysteries  in  the  chance 

•^  _  /  ''  Objection  8. 

ii'regularities  of  the  letters?" 

There  is  the  greatest  difference,  I  replied.  The 
Talmud ists  got  away  from  the  meaning  as  given  by 
the  gratnmar  and  lexicon  ;  I  am  seeking  to  get  as 
close  to  it  as  possible.  They  sought  for  mysteries  in 
their  inner  consciousness.  I  am  seeking  for  no  mys- 
teries, but  to  see  if  there  are  facts  in  the  world's 
actual  history  which  correspond  to  the  statements  of 
Moses.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  as  unlike  the 
method  of  the  Tahnudists  as  possible. 

It  will  be  wise  for  us  to  inquire  in  regard  to  what 
has  already  been  said,  or  what  shall  hereafter  be  said, 
not  whether  it  is  new — that  is  a  matter  of  little  conse- 
quence ;  nor  whether  it  is  of  importance,  for  of  that 
we  often  cannot  judge ;  but  whether  it  is  true,  leaving 
other  matters  to  be  determined  afterward. 

But  to  return  to  our  theme.  What,  according  to 
present  science,  must  have  been  the  first  visible  effect 
of  motion  in  that  primordial  matter  ? 

"  The  emission  of  light.  First,  heat  was  generated, 
and  as  soon  as  that  became  sufiiciently  intense  the 
whole  became  luminous.  The  discovery  that  forces 
are  so  related  that  motion  generates  heat  and  light  is 
the  glory  of  modern  science.  It  is  a  part  of  that 
correlation  of  forces  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much, 
and    the    true    order    of    development    is    darkness. 


Ijf)  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

jriotion,  light — a  discovery  wholly  due  to  the  nine- 
teenth century." 

To  th.is  I  agreed,  and  then  called  his  attention  to 
the  order  given  in  the  second  and  third  verses  of  this 
ciiapter,  asking  at  the  same  time  whether  it  was 
correct. 

Of  course  he  could  not  deny  it,  but,  evidently  fear- 
ing the  conclusion  which  would  be  drawn  from  his 
Objection  9.  admissiou,  he  said,  "  But  surely  the  coin- 
Tiie  coinci-      gidence  is  merely  accidental.     Moses  knew 

aence  acci-  >J 

dental.  nothing  about  modern  physics ;  then  how 

could  he  have  any  knowledge  bf  the  relations  of  forces 
— relations  discovered  almost  four  thousand  years 
after  his  death  ?  Such  a  supposition  was  too  absurd 
to  be  entertained." 

I  thoug-ht  the  coincidences  were  ffettina:  to  be 
rather  numerous,  and  therefore  asked  how  many,  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  chances,  would  be  needed 
to  prove  them  intentional. 

He  acknowledged  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for 
many  coincidences  by  any  theory  of  accidents,  but  he 
w^as  not  prepared  to  say  how  far  he  would  go  rather 
than  admit  the  possession  of  so  much  knowledge  on 
the  part  of  the  author  of  this  account. 

From  my  stand-point,  J  answered,  there  is  no  diffi- 
culty in  accounting  for  the  possession  of  so  much 
knowledge,  nor  any  anachronism  in  imputing  to  the 
author  of  this  narrative  absolute  familiarity  with  all 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  57 

that  scientists  ever  have,  or  ever  will,  discover ;  but 
from  yours  the  difficulty  is  insurmountable. 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply,  and  as  I  did 
not  care  then  to  pursue  that  thought  any  further  we 
let  it  drop. 

After  a  little  he  said  :  "  It  seems  to  me  that  Moses 
makes  a  statement  in  the  fourth  verse  which  is  contra- 
dicted by  our  present  knowledge — a  very  natural 
error  on  his  part,  because  when  he  lived  nothing  was 
known  of  the  nature  of  light.  Directly  after  the 
words,  'And  there  was  light,'  he  says  that  the  Might 
was  good.'  Now,  the  Creator  could  not  objection  lo. 
have  indited  this  account,  for  he  knew  nou^nceVgood 
then,  what  scientists  have  just  found  out,  too  soon, 
that  the  early  nebular  light  was  not  good  light.  It 
was  very  poor  light  indeed.  Unfortunately  for  the 
truth  of  his  story,  the  spectroscope,  of  which  Moses 
knew  nothing,  has  revealed  the  remarkable  and  hith- 
erto unsuspected  fact  that  the  spectra  of  gaseous  neb- 
ulas are  very  poor  in  color  and  intensity.  They  show 
only  three  faint  and  very  narrow  bands  of  light,  one 
in  the  blue  and  two  in  the  green.  Such  light  is  good 
in  no  sense  that  I  can  understand.  It  certainly  seems 
to  me  that  this  is  an  error  which  the  All-wise  could 
not  have  committed,  and  hence  I  cannot  think  of  his 
being  the  author  of  this  story." 

You  admit  that  light  did  appear  in  the  nebulous 
matter,  and  after  motion  ? 


58  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"  Yes ;  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  that." 

And,  I  added,  although  it  was  not  perfected  at 
first,  yet  that  afterward  it  attained  its  present  richness 
of  color  and  actinic  power? 

"Yes;  I  must  of  course  admit  it." 

Well,  then,  I  asked,  where  is  Moses  in  error  ? 

"  Why,  in  this :  he  says  the  light  attained  this  con- 
dition of  goodness  immediately  after  it  began  to  exist 
Science  disputes  that,  for,  in  fact,  light  did  not  attain 
its   present  quality   until    many  thousands  of  years 
later." 

Pray,  show  me  where  Moses  says  so. 

"It  is  true,"  he  replied,  "  Moses  does  not  say  this 
in  so  many  words,  but  he  does  place  the  one  state- 
ment immediately  after  the  other.  He  says,  '  And 
tliere  was  light,'  and  at  once  goes  on  to  say,  in  the 
very  next  clause,  '  And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was 
good  ; '  and  every  body  but  you  thinks  he  meant  that 
the  one  followed  immediately  after  the  other." 

Truth  cannot  be  decided  by  counting  its  advocates. 
Error  is  almost  always  in  the  majority.  Our  business  is 
with  what  Moses  says  and  with  the  facts  of  the  world's 
history,  and  with  nothing  besides.  In  his  account 
I  find  the  two  statements  with  no  intimation  whether 
much  or  little  time  intervened,  or  even  none  at  all. 
But  no  man  has  a  right  on  the  strength  of  this  silence 
to  charge  Moses  with  saying  that  tliere  was  no  in- 
terval ;  and  then,  because  there  really  was  an  interval, 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  59 

to  accuse  him  of  falsehood.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
going  beyond  all  fairness;  and  if  so,  your  objection 
falls  to  the  ground. 

There  is,  however,  something  here  to  which  I  wish 
to  direct  your  attention.  A  few  yeai'S  ago  ^^  important 
it  would  have  been  tliought  the  proper  matter  of  order. 
order  to  place  the  verdict  '  good  '  after  the  statement 
that  God  di\dded  between  the  light  and  the  darkness. 
People  believed  till  lately  that  light  and  darkness,  at 
first,  M^ere  mingled  as  two  substances,  for  example, 
alcohol  and  w^ater ;  and  that  God,  in  some  way,  sepa- 
i-ated  them.  If  so,  then  evidently,  until  that  was 
done,  light  could  scarcely  be  called  good  light;  or  in 
other  words,  the  verdict  should  not  have  been  giveii 
until  after  the  separation.  Up  to  the  present  cent- 
ury— I  might  almost  say,  up  to  the  present  decade — 
such  would  have  seemed  the  scientific  as  well  as  the 
Tuitural  order.  But,  in  fact,  to  have  placed  the  ver- 
dict after  that  division  would  have  been  a  real  and 
important  error,  for  we  know  that  light  and  darkness 
ai-e  not  two  substances,  and  the  division  between  them 
was  not  an  unmingling,  but  a  separation  by  an  opaque 
body,  just  such  a  separation  as  now  exists.  This,  of 
course,  could  not  take  place  until  the  surface  of  the 
earth  became  covered  with  a  dark  crust.  No  other 
division  between  light  and  darkness  is  possible  or  even 
conceivable.  But  long  before  this  point  in  world-mak- 
ing was  reached  the  earth  had  passed  through  a  con- 


60  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

dition  of  the  most  intense  lieat — in  fact,  had  been  a 
miniature  sun  ;  and  tlie  spectroscope  tells  us  that  light 
emitted  from  such  a  body  must  have  been  identical 
with  that  which  now  conies  from  the  sun,  and  hence 
'  good '  light.  It  is  probaljle  that  the  sun  itself  had  by 
that  time  reached  a  condition  the  same  in  all  but  size 
as  at  the  present  day,  and  hence  its  light,  too,  was 
'  good.'  The  verdict  of  approval  and  completion  was 
therefore  rightly  placed  before  the  separation  between 
light  and  darkness.  Only  by  a  violation  of  the  true 
order  could  Moses  have  placed  the  verdict  later  ;  and 
this  is  so,  whether  he  referred  to  the  light  emitted 
by  our  earth  or  by  the  sun  ;  in  either  case  light  was 
perfected  before  the  earth  ceased  to  be  self-luminous. 

As  this  seems  to  me  a  matter  of  importance,  you 
will  pardon  me  if  I  dwell  upon  it.  Suppose,  then, 
Moses  had  written  : 

"And  God  said.  Let  there  be  light :  and  there  was 
light.  And  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness. 
And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good." 

Such  an  order  would  have  exactly  harmonized  witii 
the  old  belief  that  a  faint  twilight,  a  mingled  light 
and  darkness,  first  slione  upon  our  earth.  Those 
who  hold  this  belief  might  well  speak,  from  their 
stand-point,  of  the  wisdom  of  the  writer  in  placing 
the  divine  verdict  after  the  two  elements  had  been 
separated,  perhaps  with  a  lurkingbelief  that  he  would 
liave   done  still   better  had  he  deferred  it  until  after 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  61 

the  close  of  the  fonrtli  day.  J3ut  had  he  so  placed  it, 
its  position  would  have  been  in  direct  conflict  with 
important  facts  in  the  world's  history,  facts  which 
have  only  i-ecently  been  discovered  ;  in  fact,  only  since 
the  invention  of  the  spectroscope. 

The  Mosaic  order  is :  hrst,  darkness ;  then,  mo- 
tion ;    then,    lio-ht ;    next,    the     lifirlit    is 

'  7         0'  '  o  Darkness. 

'^ood' — that  is,  perfected  ;  then,  a  divis-  LWit-     ^isut 

^  _  good.    A  sepa- 

ion  between  the  light  and  darkness  ;  and,   ration.      Day 

and  night. 

day  and  nisj^ht  begin. 

Can  it  be  bettered  ?  Nay,  is  it  possible  to  make 
the  slightest  change  in  it  without  the  most  serious 
consequences  to  what  we  call  science  ?  'Instead  of  a 
blunder,  there  is  here  proof  of  the  omniscience  of  the 
author  of  this  account,  the  more  marvelous  because, 
until  lately,  it  seemed  just  the  opposite. 

"  This,"  said  the  Professor,  "  is  a  most  extraoi'di- 
nary  document !  What  you  say  about  light  is  true. 
For  as  soon  as  the  earth  passed  from  a  gas  or  vapor 
to  a  liquid  its  light  must  have  been  the  same  in  all 
its  properties  as  present  solar  light,*  and  I  have  no 
doubt  that,  at  so  late  a  period  in  cosmical  development, 
the  then  solar  light  had  attained  all  its  present  qualities, 
and  it  was  after  this  that  day  and  night  began." 

*  It  matters  nothing  in  reference  to  my  argument  wliether  the  in- 
terior of  the  sun  now  is  licniid,  or,  as  some  think,  enormously  con- 
densed gas.  Wliichever  it  is,  our  world,  to  reacli  its  present  condi- 
t'lin.  passed    through    the   same  state  long   before   it   became  nou- 

lumiuous. 


G2  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

To  me  tlici'e  is  nothing  in  the  account  so  wonder- 
ful, and  so  unaccountable  on  any  human  theory  of  its 
origin,  as  the  accuracy  of  its  order  even  to  the  minut- 
est details.  I  shall  often  have  occasion  to  speak  of 
this. 

But  these  verses  are  rich  in  precious  veins  of  truth  ; 
how  rich  we  can  know  only  when  our  knowledge 
has  become  perfect.  One  more,  at  least,  I  can  now 
see. 

Our  world,  as  Professor  Huxley  told  his  hearers, 
in  his  New  York  lectures,  and  as  all  scientists  believe, 
was  once  a  mass  of  incandescent  vapor,  which  passed 
by  cooling  to  a  liquid  condition,  self-luminous  hke 
the  sun,  then  to  a  solid  opaque  planet.  What  cir- 
cumstance, or  perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  say, 
what  phenomenon  would  have  indicated  to  a  spec- 
tator, had  there  been  one,  the  close  of  the  first  or 
igneous  period,  and  the  beginning  of  the  present, 
when  the  earth  is  dependent  upon  the  sun  for  light  ? 

"It  is  evident  enough,"  he  replied,  "  that  the  close 
of  the  one  period  and  the  beginning  of  the  other  were 
characterized  by  the  complete  cessation  of  the  earth's 
emitting  light,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  by  no  other 
circumstance.  Had  we  been  supported  at  some  point 
in  space  where  we  could  watch  tlie  progress  of  the 
transition  we  would  have  noticed  but  little  difference 
at  first  between  the  brightness  of  the  side  towaixl  the 
sun  and  of    that    turned    in    the  opposite    direction. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  63 

But  as  time  passed  and  tlie  earth  grew  less  and  less 
hot,  its  light  grew  less  intense,  and  a  difference  be- 
tween the  brilliancy  of  its  two  sides  began  to  mani- 
fest itself.  This  increased  until  at  last  one  side  dis- 
appeared in  the  darkness  of  its  own  shadow,  while 
the  other  was  illuminated  by  the  light  of  the  sun. 
The  completion  of  this  process  indicated  the  end  of 
the  igneous  period  and  the  beginning  of  the  present. 
It  was  also  the  beginning  of  day  and  night ;  not,  of 
course,  of  revolutions  on  its  axis,  but  of  alternate  light 
and  darkness. 

"  Excuse  my  boasting  of  science,"  said  the  Pro- 
fessor, "  but  is  it  not  marvelous  that  by  its  aid  we  are 
able  to  tell  of  events  in  our  world's  history  which 
occurred  so  many  million  years  ago,  and  to  point  out 
the  great  final  event  of  the  igneous  period,  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present,  or  true  planetary  condition  ?" 

Yes,  it  is  marvelous,  and  one  can  but  stand  in 
reverent  wonder  before  the  power  of  the  human  in- 
tellect. But  to  me  there  is  something  far  more 
wonderful  than  that  when  I  read  in  this  narrative, 
written  thousands  of  years  ago  by  the  leader  of  a 
semi-barbarons  nation  of  fugitive  slaves,  as  the  closing 
fact  in  this  first  stage  of  world-making,  that  God 
divided  between  the  light  and  the  darkness ;  and  then, 
as  if  more  definitely  to  fix  the  meaning  and  the 
epoch,  that  God  called  the  light  day,  and  the  dark- 
ness called  he  night ;  and  notice  that  it  is  the  very 
5 


64  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

circumstance  which,  as  you  have  justly  said,  mai'ks 
the  close  of  the  earlier  and  the  beginning  of  the 
present  condition. 

As  to  the  many  events  between  the  first  appearance 
of  liglit  and  this  separation,  Moses  omits  them  all. 
In  the  nature  of  the  case  so  brief  an  account  could 
touch  upon  only  a  few  of  the  most  important  transac- 
tions in  the  period  of  which  it  treats.  He  merely 
])asses  over  the  others,  neither  afiirming  nor  denying 
any  thing  about  them.  Really,  I  can  see  nothing 
herewith  which  science  can  justly  find  fault.* 

"Why,  there  is  this:  astronomers  have  shown  that 
Objection  11.      this  division  occurred  may  ages  after  the 

"Moses  says        x;      .  r    t    i  i.  i  -i        m 

that tbe crea-  '■^^^^  appearance  01  liglit,  while  JMoses 
tion  thus  far      g^^yg  ^-j^g  ^yliole  Creation  thus  far  only  oc- 

occupied  only  ''  •' 

one  day."         cupied  One  day." 

Moses  says  that !     Where  does  he  say  it  ? 

"  He  does  not  say  that  in  just  these  words.  But  it 
is  his  meaning." 

I  do  not  so  understand  it.  (I  then  read  aloud  all 
the  chapter  down  to  the  fifth  verse.)  I  find,  after 
several  statements  describing  as  many  transactions, 
one  saying  that,  as  our  version  has  it,  the  evening 

*  How  large  a  book  would  have  been  required  for  all  the  impor- 
tant and  interesting  facts  in  those  millions  of  years  1  Think  of  the 
volumes  necessary  for  wliat  is  now  known,  and  how  little  that  is  in 
comparison  witli  what  remains  to  be  discovered.  However  much 
Oo(i  might  have  revealed,  it  would  always  be  a  mere  fragment  of  an 
iiitiiiite  whole. 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  6^ 

and  the  morning  were  the  first  day.  Moses  had  just 
said  that  God  divided  between  the  liglit  and  the  dark- 
ness, and  that  God  called  the  light  day  and  the  dark- 
ness night ;  and  as  these  were  the  first  evening  and 
morning — were  they  not  the  first  ? — he  adds  merely 
that  they  were  the  fii-st  day.  Here  is  no  error.  They 
were  really  the  first  day. 

"  But,"  said  the  Professor,  "  I  have  been  told  by 
many,  and  have  read  it  in  commentaries,  that  Moses 
means,  not  that  the  evening  and  the  morning  were 
the  first  day,  but  that  all  thus  far  was  done  on  that 
one  day ;  and  I  know  it  is  not  so." 

We  agreed  not  to  let  our  discussion  wander  oif  to 
what  others  have  said.  We  have  before  us  the  narra- 
tive itself.  We  are  not  inquiring  as  to  the  truth  of 
somebody's  explanation  or  theory,  but  as  to  the  state- 
ments of  Moses  himself,  and  he  does  not  say  that  any 
thing  was  done  on  that  day.  It  may  and  probably 
does  mean  that  all  thus  far  was  done  before  that  first 
day. 

"  If  we  are  to  be  narrowed  to  that  I  must  of  course 
admit  that  the  first  evening  and  morning  after  that 
division  were  literally  the  first  day  of  the  earth.  But 
for  all  that  it  seems  hardly  credible  that  so  many 
persons  should  have  thought  Moses  meant  to  say,  God 
created  things  thus  far  in  one  day,  if  there  had  not 
been  good  grounds  for  their  belief." 

Many  good  men,  I  replied,  have  thought  the  stars 


66  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

were  specks  of  light,  and  the  sun  infinitely  less  than  our 
earth.  You  do  not  find  in  their  belief  any  good  rea- 
son for  rejecting  the  conclusions  of  more  modern 
observers.  Where  they  differ  from  present  astrono- 
mers you  do  not  make  it  a  question  of  authority,  nor 
even  of  numbers,  with  which  you  shall  side,  but  you 
appeal  directly  to  the  volume  of  nature.  As  to  what 
Moses  meant  it  is  equally  right  to  appeal  from  an- 
cient or  modern  commentators  to  the  written  record 
which  he  has  left  us. 

"  I  must  admit  that  he  should  not  be  condemned 
for  what  others  have  said.  He  should  be  tried  by  his 
own  words,  and  certainly  they  do  not  say  that  all  this 
was  done  in  one  day.  But,  admitting  your  exposition 
to  be  true,  we  know  that  this  process  of  cooling  was 
very  long,    and  consequently   that  tliei'e 

Objection  13.  "^  °  ^t  J 

No  abrupt  was  no  abrupt  change  from  a  luminous 
to  a  non-luminous  condition,  and  hence 
no  day  so  marked.  The  change  must  have  been  im- 
perceptible. How  then  can  you  speak  of  any  one 
day  when  it  was  completed  ?  " 

True,  the  process  was  gradual,  and  so  is  the  growth 
of  a  person  from  boyhood  to  manhood.  There  is  a 
day  up  to  which  he  is  an  infant,  and  on  which  he  is 
invested  with  all  the  rights  of  manhood.  You  would 
think  it  strange  to  be  accused  of  falsehood,  or  even  of 
inaccuracy,  because  you  spoke  of  the  first  day  of  your 
being  a  man.     So  in  regard  to  our  planet ;  it  perhaps 


OUR  FIRST  EVENING.  67 

was  impossible  to  say  at  what  moment  the  change 
from  a  luminous  to  a  non-luminous  state  was  com- 
pleted. It  may  have  been  when  the  last  lake  of 
flowing  lava  was  skimmed  over  with  a  black  crust : 
but,  whenever  it  was,  it  marked  the  end  of  the  old 
condition  and  the  beginning  of  the  new.  It  was  the 
natal  day  of  a  world. 

Just  then  the  striking  of  a  clock  reminded  ns  of 
the  lateness  of  the  hour.  We  agreed  to  stop  here 
and  to  resume  our  conversation  the  next  evening. 


There  is  one  objection  to  the  truth  of  this  ac- 
count which  its  opponents  for  a  long  time  thought 
fatal,  and  which  has  given  its  friends  much 

Tim  '11  Objection  13. 

needless  trouble,  io  meet  it  tliey  have 
devised  some  strange  theories.  I  refer  to  the  fact, 
long  thought  so  unaccountable,  that  light  is  made  to 
appear  before  the  sun.  Now  we  hear  nothing  of  it, 
and  as  the  reader,  perhaps,  has  noticed,  the  Professor 
did  not  even  refer  to  it.  Of  the  correctness  of  this 
order  there  is  not  to-day  the  slightest  question.  I 
mention  it  only  to  note  how  the  advance  of  knowl- 
edge sweeps  away  supposed  difficulties.  Our  agnostic 
friends,  with  easy  forgetfulness,  seem  not  to  remem- 
ber that  such  an  objection  was  ever  made. 


68  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


OUR   SECOND    EVENING. 


THE      THEME. 

Genesis  i,  6-8. 

6  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst  of  the  waters, 

and  let  it  divide  the  loaters  from  the  ivaters. 
T  And  God  made  the  firmament,  and  divided  the  waters  ivhich  were 

under  the  firmament  from  the  ivafers  luhichwere  above  the  firmament : 

And  it  was  so. 
8  And  God  called  the  firmament  Heaven. 

And  the  evening  and  the  morning  tuere  the  second  day. 

On  the  next  evening  the  Professor  came  a  little 
before  the  hour  agreed  upon.  We  at  once  settled 
ourselves  to  work.     I  opened  the  discussion. 

Well,  Professor,  we  have  followed  the  history  of 
our  world  from  that  "beginning"  which  bounds  the 
earth's  nebulous  stage,  on  the  one  side,  to  that  first 
day  which  bounds  it  on  the  other,  and  I  think  you 
must  admit  that  those  who  claim  a  contradiction 
between  the  Mosaic  account  and  astronomy  and 
geology,  or  other  sciences,  have  not,  as  yet,  been  jus- 
tified by  any  thing  in  the  story  itself.  What  adds  to 
the  marvelous  character  of  this  account  is  the  fact 
that  these  statements  relate  to  matters  so  profound 
that  it  is  only  within  a  few  years  that  physicists  have 
been  able  in  some  degree  to  see  their  wealth  of  mean- 
ing.    Instead  of  this  Ijeing,  as  has  been  flippantly  said, 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  69 

"  a  statement  of  obvious  facts  in  the  most  natural 
order,"  the  facts  are  not  obvious,  nor  is  their  order 
tliat  which  would  occur  most  naturally  to  one  writing 
about  the  work  of  creation  ;  for  the  former  escaped 
the  keenest  observers  and  the  latter  the  most  pro- 
found thinkers  until  within  a  generation.  The  more 
I  reflect  upon  the  matter  the  more  I  am  impressed 
with  the  statements  here  made.  It  will  help  you  see 
their  value  if  you  look  at  them,  not  in  their  theolog- 
ical relations,  but  in  their  relation  to  science.  Our 
agnostic  friends  say  that  what  Moses  wrote  is  either 
false  or  of  trifling  consequence.     Let  us  see. 

If  it  is  not  true  that  the  heavens  and  earth  had  a  be- 
ginning, then  the  sun  has  not  been  losing  energy,  or  its 
stores  would  long  ago  have  been  exhausted.  But, 
unless  the  sun  is  constantly  giving  oif  energy,  all  our 
present  ideas  as  to  force,  energy,  heat,  and  light  are 
in  erroi'.  ISTor,  if  there  was  no  beginning,  can  there 
possibly  be  a  resisting  medium  in  space,  for,  however 
small  the  resistance,  if  there  was  no  beo-inninc:  all  the 
force  which  propels  tlie  planets  in  their  orbits  w^ould 
inflnite  ages  ago  have  been  exhausted.  Nor  can 
there  be  any  friction  of  the  tides,  or  the  earth  would 
long  ago  have  ceased  to  turn  on  its  axis  more  tlian 
once  in  a  year. 

If  the  earth  was  never  "  without  form  and  void," 
then  it  never  was  a  portion  of  a  nebula,  nor  even  in  a 
gaseous  state,  and  the  evidence  from  the  igneous  rocks, 


70  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

and  the  present  semi-fluid  condition  of  Jupiter  and 
Saturn,  is  all  worthless.  Wliat  would  agnostic  j)hi- 
losophy  do  without  a  world  once  formless  and  void  ? 

If  Moses  erred  wdien  placing  dai-kness  before  motion, 
then  tlie  correlation  of  forces  is  a  myth,  and  we  have 
absohitelj  no  tlieory  as  to  tlie  nature  of  light.  I  call, 
therefore,  upon  those  who  deny  the  accuracy  of  the 
M(;saic  order  to  give  some  theory  of  light  which  shall 
be  consistent  with  light  before  motion. 

If  Moses  was  in  error  when  he  attributed  the  first  set- 
ting in  motion  to  the  same  source  as  matter,  then  he 
erred  in  common  with  the  physicists  of  to-day,  for  the 
existence  of  motion  is  as  inexplicable  as  the  existence 
of  matter. 

If  Moses  errs  when  he  places  light  after  motion, 
then  oi>tics  has  no  basis  on  which  to  stand. 

If  JMoses  errs  wlien  he  says  that  the  light  was 
"good  "  before  there  was  a  division  between  light  and 
darkness,  and,  consequently,  before  that  alternate 
light  and  darkness  which  is  called  day  and  night,  then 
all  that  spectroscopists  have  told  us  as  to  the  kind, 
quality,  and  differences  of  light  from  gases,  liquids, 
and  solids  is  only  a  misleading  fiction.  It  is  worse 
than  of  no  value,  for  it  leads  to  error. 

In  brief,  the  correlation  of  forces,  the  undulatory 
theory  of  light — and  the  corpuscular  too,  for  that 
matter — and  the  nebular  theory,  eacli  is  disproved, 
and  the  spectroscope  shown  to  be  of  little  worth,  if 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  71 

the  physical  statements  in  these  verses  are  nntrne  or 
if  their  order  is  wrong.  Surelj^  these  are  no  trivial 
matters. 

"  I  ninst  grant,"  said  the  Professor,  "  that  there 
is  here  something  very  different  from  what  I  have 
been  taught  and  have  believed.  So  far  objection  i4. 
as  I  can  see  there  is  no  escape  from  your  Moses  does  not 

-I  -^  mean  what  he 

argument  save  on  the  theory  that  Moses  ^ays. 
did  not  mean  what  his   words  seem  to  say." 

But  that  is  not  an  escape,  because  we  are  not  dis- 
cussing the  extent  of  liis  knowledge,  but  whether  his 
words  do,  without  unfair  straining,  describe  conditions 
that  once  existed,  and  whether  these  conditions  really 
occurred  in  the  order  in  which  he  has  (unwittingly,  if 
you  please)  placed  them. 

"  Well,  then,  if  that  be  ruled  out  there  is  another 
answer  which  some  will  make,  although  I 

°  Objection     15. 

cannot  adopt  it.     They  will  say  matter  has  Matter  nas  ai- 

1  •   ,     A         -I  .  •  1    />  1  ways  existed. 

always  existed  and  motion  and  lorce  have 
always  been.  This  is  contrary  to  all  that  modern  sci- 
ence has  shown  of  the  dissipation  of  energy.*  It  is  a 
pure  conjecture,  founded  neither  on  facts  nor  on  argu- 
ment, but  is  an  assumption  to  avoid  certain  conclusions 
which  otherwise  appear  inevitable.  It  leads  to  panthe- 
ism, if  not  to  absolute  atheism.     If  it  allows  of  any 

*Tliis  dissipation  of  energy  is  a  curious  and  interesting  subject. 
See  Tail's  Recent  Advances  in  Physical  Science,  pp.  20,  21.  Also, 
Tliomson,  On  a  Universal  Tendency  in  Nature  to  Dissipation  of  Energy, 
Proceedings  of  Royal  Society  of  Edinburg,  1852. 


72  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

God,  it  does  not  allow  of  a  creator.  He  merely  co- 
exists with  matter  and  force,  if,  indeed,  lie  is  not  the 
product  of  the  two.  I  cannot  stultify  myself  with 
such  a  belief,  for,  although  I  have  not  been  able  to 
accept  a  revelation,  yet  I  do  believe  in  a  creator. 

"  As  I  have  said,  I  find  this  account  a  very  differ- 
ent matter  from  what  I  expected,  and  I  will  add  that 
I  am  anxious  to  know  how  you  get  along  with  the 
rest  of  it." 

We  will,  then,  take  up  the  history  of  our  globe 
from  the  time  it  became  non-luminous,  because,  as 
you  have  already  noticed,  it  seems  easier  to  grasp  the 
meaning  of  these  pregnant  sentences  if  we  turn  first 
to  what  science  has  revealed.  What,  just  after  day 
and  night  began,  must  have  been  tiie  condition  of  the 
earth's  surface  ? 

"  It  must  have  been,"  he  replied,  "  one  vast  ex- 
panse of  scoriae,  or  hardened  lava,  intensely  hot,  but 
not  glowing.  Above  its  surface  was  an  atmosphere 
loaded  with  hot  vapor,  forming  clouds  of  whose  ex- 
tent and  density  we  can  form  some  conception  when 
we  reflect  that  all  the  present  waters,  whether  in 
oceans,  lakes,  or  rivers,  existed  at  first  as  steam.  As 
tliere  is  water  enough  to  cover  the  globe  to  the  depth 
of  about  twelve  thousand  feet,  the  pressure  must  have 
been  somewhere  about  six  thousand  pounds  on  the 
square  inch  from  that  alone,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
carbonic  acid  and  other  impurities  which  also  existed 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  73 

as  gas  or  vapor.  Under  sncli  enormous  weight,  it  is 
in  accordance  with  all  we  know  of  vapors  to  believe 
that  a  large  portion  was  condensed  to  a  liquid  long 
before  the  heat  of  the  eartli's  crust  sank  to  the  tem- 
perature of  boiling  water.  An  immense  amount 
must  have  remained  as  vapor,  and  covered  the  eartli 
with  an  envelope  of  clouds  hundreds  of  miles  in  thick- 
ness, and  tliereby  excluded  the  light  of  the  sun.  On 
the  earth's  surface,  therefore,  w^ere  intensely  hot 
waters,  and  resting  on  them  dense  clouds  reaching 
far  beyond  the  pi-esent  limits  of  the  atmosphere.  On 
the  outside  of  this  envelope  the  sun  shone  as  brightly 
as  now,  but  within,  and  resting  on  the  surface  of  the 
hot  sea,  was  thick  darkness."  * 

What,  in  your  opinion,  was  tlie  next  step  to  be  taken 
in  the  process  of  preparation  for  plants  or  animals 
to  exist  on  tlie  earth  ? 

"  It  might  seem  a  matter  of  indifference  whether 
the  dense  clouds  should  be  removed,  thus  admitting 
the  light,  and  of  course  implying  a  temperature  so 
low  that  life  could  endure  it,  or  whetlier  the  land 
was  elevated  first.  But  this  is  wrong.  Before  the 
land  was  fit  to  be  elevated  above  the  waters  there 
was  a  long  preparatory  process,  during  which  the 
primeval  rocks  were  broken  and  ground  up  to  form 

*The  reader  wi]l  recall  the  sublime  words  of  the  Ahnighfy, 
"When  I  made  tlie  cloud  the  garment  thereof,  and  thick  darkness  a 
swaddling-bnnd  for  it." 


74  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

gravel,  sand,  and  finer  material  indispensable  for 
future  soils  which  should  be  capable  of  sustaining 
land  plants  and  land  animals.  At  the  same  time 
the  waters  were  being  purified  by  the  removal  of 
their  excess  of  carbonate  of  lime,  and  other  sub- 
stances, which  would  have  been  fatal  to  all  vertebrate 
forms  of  life,  but  which  were  indispensable  compo- 
nents of  the  future  soils.  To  bring  about  such  re- 
moval corals,  mollusks,  and  countless  other  marine 
creatures  of  the  lowest  forms  were  needed.  I  need 
not  say  that  marine  life  required  marine  vegetation  ; 
and  that  both  animals  and  vegetation  were  impossible 
without  a  lower  temperature  and  sunlight.  Hence  it 
was  not  a  matter  of  indifference  which  came  first.  It 
was  necessary  that  the  dense  clouds  should  be  tliinned 
out,  the  water  deposited,  and  sunlight  admitted  be- 
fore the  land  was  elevated  above  the  seas.  It  is  won- 
derful how  science  reveals  even  the  order  of  Nature's 
operations !  " 

And  what  phenomenon,  I  asked,  would  have  in- 
dicated to  a  spectator,  had  one  been  there,  the  close 
of  this  stage  of  preparation  ? 

"  I  can  think  of  no  other  than  a  transparent  or  open 
atmosphere,  like  the  present,  high  up  in  which  there 
might  bo  floating  clouds,  but  which  was  clear  enough 
to  permit  the  heavenly  bodies  to  be  seen.  Such  an 
atmosphere  would  indicate  a  temperature  at  which 
the  lower  forms  of  life  would  be  possible." 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  75 

Now,  please  compare  wliat  you  liav^e  been  saying 
with  that  which  is  fonnd  in  tins  narrative,  and  which 
Moses  says  did  occur.  He  tells  ns  that  God  (through 
his  laws,  if  you  please)  made  an  expanse — rakia,  he 
calls  it — "  in  the  midst  of  the  waters."  Here  you 
will  notice  a  verbal  nicety,  which,  in  view  of  the 
actual  occurrences,  and  in  connection  with  the  gen- 
eral drift  of  the  account,  seems  to  be  worthy  of  at- 
tention. The  expanse  was  to  be  formed  "  in  the 
midst  of  the  waters  " — that  is,  there  were  waters  above 
it  as  well  as  below  it  when  it  began  to  form.  The 
process  began  not  at  the  top  nor  at  the  bottom  of  the 
waters,  but  in  the  midst.  Now  place  that  in  the  light 
of  your  remark  a  few  moments  ago,  that  under  the 
enormous  pressure  much  of  the  vapor  on  our  globe 
must  have  been  reduced  to  a  liquid  form  at  a  temper- 
ature far  above  the  boiling  point,  212  degrees  Fahr., 
and  you  will  see  that  the  description  is  in  harmony 
with  the  fact.  The  expanse,  or  clearing,  began  most 
probably  near  or  at  the  surface  of  the  waters  already 
condensed — water  below  and  water  in  form  of  vftpor 
and  dense  clouds  above  the  inchoate  expanse.  Let- 
ting this  pass,  you  will  observe  that  after  the  expanse 
was  completed  the  account  says  there  were  waters 
above  it  and  below  it ;  and,  lastly,  that  it  so  reached 
out  into  space  that  it  formed  a  sky,  and,  as  Moses 
expressed  it,  "  God  called  it  heaven."  Certainly  we 
cannot  complain  of  any  disagreement  here. 


76  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"  Yes,"  he  replied,  "  this  is  all  very  curious,  and 
Objection  16.  Perhaps  more  than  curious,  but  does  not 
A  literal  exe-  your  exegesis  lead   to  an  absurd   result? 

ffesis  leads   to    "^  ^ 

au  absurdity.  You  Say  that  the  rakia  is  the  open  space 
above  us,  and  more  especially  that  part  between  the 
clouds  and  the  waters  in  the  seas ;  and  in  the  account 
we  read,  as  you  have  said,  that  God  called  the  '•  Tokia'' 
heaven ;  and  further  on,  that  God  placed  the  sun, 
moon,  and  stai-s  in  the  '  rakia '  of  heaven.  Xow, 
does  it  not  fairly  follow  that  Moses  must  have 
believed  that  these  bodies  were  somewhere  in  the 
air?" 

I  think  not.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  won- 
derful desciiptive  power  of  the  Hebrew.  In  this 
lies  the  explanation.  ^''  Shamayim^''  the  word  trans- 
lated "  heaven,"  is  literally  the  high  place.  Now, 
what  could  be  more  natural  and  appropriate  than  to 
style  the  expanse  from  the  earth  upward  to  the  clouds 
and  beyond,  the  "  shamayim^^^  and  then,  by  a  com- 
mon use  of  words,  to  include  in  it  all  that  it  seemed 
to  contain,  and  so  extend  the  word  not  only  to  the 
limited  "high  regions"  of  clouds,  but  to  all  that 
could  be  seen  in  the  "  shamayirn  " — the  high  regions 
beyond  ? 

One,  however  wise,  if  he  employed  human  language 
at  all,  could  do  no  otherwise  than  speak  of  sun,  moon, 
and  stars  as  situated  in  the  '■^  shamaylm'''' — the  word 
in  most  common  use  amono-  the  Hebrews  to  describe 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  77 

all  that  we  now  include  in  our  English  term  heav- 
ens. 

But  we  have  yet  to  note  the  order  of  these  great 
events.  The  depositing  of  the  water  and  the  clear- 
ing of  the  atmosphere  are  not  represented  as  occur- 
ring before  the  division  between  the  light  and  the 
darkness.  Had  they  been  so  placed  you  could  justly 
claim  that  Moses  iiad  made  an  error,  for  we  know, 
although  he  did  not,  that  before  the  division — that  is, 
before  the  earth  ceased  to  be  self-luminous — its  sur- 
face was  too  hot  for  such  a  process.  Indeed,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  while  the  earth  was  molten 
water  existed  only  as  it  does  now  in  the  sun — that  is, 
as  hydrogen  and  oxygen. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Moses  had  said  that  this 
great  event  occurred  after  the  dry  land  aj)jK'ared, 
geologists  would  justly  claim  this  as  an  error,  for  they 
tell  us  that  the  continents  came  up  out  of  the  water. 
And,  as  you  remarked  a  few  moments  ago,  it  was  not 
a  matter  of  indifference  which  came  first.  The  possi- 
bility of  land  plants  and  animals  existing  depended 
on  the  order  of  these  events.  If  the  continents  had 
been  raised  to  their  present  elevation  before  the  wa- 
ters wxre  deposited,  they  M'ould  have  remained  barren 
wastes  of  naked  rock  to  tliis  day.  I  ask  you,  there- 
fore, to  notice  that  whatever  the  source  of  this  ac- 
count, the  order  in  which  it  places  these  two  great 
events  is  that  which  you  claim  as  one  of  the  wonder- 


75  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

ful  discoveries  of  science.  In  sliort,  this  stage  of 
progress  has  its  proper  place  just  where  Moses  put  it. 
Tliere  it  is  true ;  elsewliere  it  would  have  been  a 
blunder. 

To  this  the  Professor  replied  :  "  "While  I  cannot 
deny  what  you  say,  I  must  say  this  is  not  Genesis, 
if  I  am  to  believe  the  general  voice  of  commentators 
and  of  the  Hebrews  themselves,  who  certainly  under- 
stood their  own  language.  They  thought  there  was 
Objection  17.  over  them  a  real  fii-mament,  something 
ttKHK^mhrnr-  solid,  which  held  up  the  heavenly  bodies 
mament  solid,  r^j^j  \yj^^  doors  and  wiudows.  This  idea 
of  vacant  space,  vacant  as  to  any  solid  support  for  the 
sky,  is  a  modei'n  thought  for  which  the  world  is  in- 
debted to  science." 

I  shall  not  discuss  the  claims  of  science  ;  our  busi- 
ness is  with  Genesis,  a!id  the  question  is  not  as  to 
what  some  one  else  has  said  or  written,  but  as  to  what 
Moses  said.  Did  the  word  "  rakla^''  translated  in  our 
version  "  firmament,"  convey  at  that  time  to  any  one 
the  idea  of  solidity,  or  was  this  meaning  tacked  on 
long  after  in  harmony  with  the  "  science  "  of  a  much 
later  age  ? 

"  Of  course,  every  scholar  knows  that  rahia  means 
an  expanse  J  but  how  did  it  happen  that  so  many 
among  the  earliest  commentators  attached  to  it  the 
sense  of  solidity  ?  " 

That   could   be   explained,    I    think,  by  the   false 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  79 

"  science  "  of  their  day.  They  had  great  confidence 
in  their  knowledge,  and,  possessing  at  tlie  same  time 
a  rugged  belief  in  revelation,  they  forced  the  two  to 
agree,  and  interpolated  the  idea  of  solidity  to  make 
the  statements  of  Moses  harmonize  with  their  belief 
in  crystal  spheres  rising  above  the  earth  like  so  many 
watch-glasses.  It  is  a  hard  lesson,  not  yet  half  learned 
by  the  friends  or  opponents  of  that  story,  to  take  its 
words  as  they  are  and  let  the  truth  take  care  of  itself. 
It  nmst  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  very  earliest 
commentators  and  translators  lived  so  long  after 
Moses  that  they  had  no  S])ecial  opportunity  of  knowing 
what  he  or  his  contemporaries  understood  by  the  word 
mistranslated  "  firmament." 

As  the  "  error  "  of  Moses  in  calling  the  expanse  a 
firmament  has  been  a  stock  argument  against  the  truth 
of  this  narrative  I  asked  my  friend's  permission  to 
read  part  of  an  article  which  I  wrote  for  the  Biblio- 
theca  Sacra^  and  which  appeared  July,  1879.  I  turned 
to  the  article  and  read  as  follows  : 

"  '  Whoever,'  it  is  said,  '  wrote  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  left  upon  record  that  "'  God  made  a  firma- 
ment," by  which  was  necessarily  conveyed  to  the  He- 
brews then  living  the  idea  of  something  solid,  a  strong 
crystalline  arch,  rising  as  a  dome  above  the  earth 
and  separating  the  waters  in  the  seas  below  it  from 
certain  other  waters  above  it.  As  no  such  arch  ex- 
ists, the  writer  who  said  so  could  not  have  written 
6 


80  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

under  the  guidance  of  One  infinitely  wise.'  The  mind 
refuses  to  attribute  error  to  God,  and  hence  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  see  how  the  conclusion  is  to  be  avoided  if  the 
j^reuiises  are  correct. 

"  It  becomes,  therefore,  important  to  discover 
\x\\Qt\\QY  ralcia,  rendered  firmament  in  our  version,  was 
employed  by  the  early  Hebrews  to  convey  the  idea  of 
firmness  and  solidity.  The  word  occurs  nine  times  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  ;  but  a  careful  scrutiny 
fails  to  reveal  any  shade  of  meaning  that  may  not  be 
equally  well  expressed  by  expanse.  The  oidy  ap- 
parent exception  is  found  in  the  statement  that  the 
raJcla  divided  the  waters  from  the  waters.  When 
men  began  to  philosophize  they  found,  as  they 
thougiit,  a  physical  absurdity  in  the  idea  of  a  mere 
expanse  sustaining  the  volume  of  water  which  at  times 
descended  to  deluge  the  ground  ;  therefore  they 
translated  raJcia  by  stereoma,  a  firmament,  some- 
thing solid,  and  so,  by  forcing  the  language  to  suit 
their  'science,'  got  rid  of  a  supposed  difficulty, 
one,  however,  which  existed  only  in  their  own  im- 
agination. 

"  But  it  may  be  said  that  although  'expanse'  is  in 
harmony  with  the  facts  of  nature,  yet  Moses  did  not 
know  it,  and  consequently  used  the  word  rakia  be- 
cause it  expressed  the  solidity  and  firmness  which  in 
his  opinion  really  existed. 

"  If  this  is  true,  the  idea  of  solidity  and  firmness 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  81 

should  be  clearly  found  in  the  radical  meaning  of  the 
word  rakia.,  and  in  its  cognates  as  employed  elsewhere. 
Should  this  be  the  case,  then  we  must  admit  that 
Moses  committed  an  error  ;  but  if,  on  the  contrary, 
the  idea  of  solidity  and  firmness  should  prove  to  be 
\vanting,  then  the  charge  of  error,  so  far  as  it  is  based 
upon  the  use  of  that  word,  fails. 

"  Rakia  occurs  outside  of  this  chapter  only  eight 
times.  In  Dan.  xii,  3,  we  read  :  '  And  they  that  be 
wnse  shall  shine  as  tlic  brightness  of  the  rakia.'' 
Here,  certainly,  is  no  assertion  of  solidity,  nothing 
to  forbid  the  use  of  any  expression  denoting  the 
sky ;  as,  for  example,  '  heaven.'  When  Ezekiel 
says,  '  The  likeness  of  the  rakia  was  ...  as  the  color 
of  the  terrible  crystal  ■  (Ezek.  i,  22),  he  speaks  not  of 
solidity,  but  only  of  color.  Nor  is  there  any  such 
idea  in  verse  23  :  '  Under  the  rakia  were  their  wings 
straight.'  So  in  verses  25,  26  :  '  There  was  a  voice 
from  the  rakia  that  was  over  their  heads, .  . .  and  above 
the  rakia  was  the  likeness  of  a  throne,  as  the  appear- 
ance of  a  sapphire  stone.'  And  again,  in  x,  1 :  'In  the 
rakia . . .  there  appeared  over  them  as  it  were  a  sapphire 
stone,  as  the  appearance  of  the  likeness  of  a  throne.' 

"  In  none  of  these  is  there  any  idea  of  solidity 
necessarily  connected  with  rakia.  On  the  contrary, 
throughout  this  mystical  imagery  there  is  a  careful 
guarding  against  it.  The  prophet  says  that  the  rakia 
was  glorious  in  color  and  appearance.      It  was  not 


82  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

crystal  ;  it  was  the  color  of  crystal.  It  was  not  a  sap- 
phire stone  ;  but  over  it,  or  on  it,  was  the  appearance 
of  a  throne  made  of  sapphire  stone.  It  is  probablj 
impossible  to  rednce  this  mysterious  vision  to  actual 
form,  harmonizing  every  detail.  Yet  in  some  of  its 
grand  outlines  we  may  succeed. 

"  As  the  ])rophet  stood  by  the  river  Chebar,  a  great 
cloud  arose  in  the  north.  Out  of  its  mist  seemed  to 
come  four  living  creatures.  The  part  of  the  cloud 
over  their  heads  glowed  in  the  light  emanating  from 
these  beings,  '  like  the  terrible  crystal.'  They  stood 
below  this  canopy,  with  their  wings  straight,  one 
toward  the  other.  The  prophet  heard  a  voice  from 
above  it,  and,  looking  up,  saw  above  all  as  it  were  a 
throne  of  sapphire  stone,  and  upon  it  the  figure  of  a 
man.  In  short,  the  appearance  over  them  was  as 
the  brilliancy  of  that  eastern  sky.  It  was  the  glorious 
expanse,  and  was  appropriately  described  by  rakia, 
taken  in  one  of  its  secondary  meanings,  wdiich  will  be 
hereafter  discussed. 

"  The  word  rakia  occurs  elsewhere  only  twice,  both 
in  the  Psalms.  Psa.  xix,  1 :  '  The  heavens  declare 
the  glory  of  God,  and  the  rakia  showeth  his  handy- 
work.'  Here  rakia  is  in  apposition  with  heavens, 
and  no  more  conveys  the  idea  of  solidity  than  would 
our  word  '  sky.'  Psa.  cl,  1 :  '  Praise  him  in  the 
rakia  of  his  power.'  Here  the  same  idea  occurs  as 
in  the  previous  text.      It  means   no  more  than  '  in 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  S3 

the  heaven  of  his  power.'  And  this  recalls  Gen. 
i,  8,  where  God  calls  the  rakia  heaven.* 

"  It  seems  that  from  these  passages  alone  the  idea  of 
a  solid  support  could  never  have  occurred  to  minds 
not  preoccupied  with  the  '  science '  of  their  own  age, 
when  men  had  begun  in  an  imperfect  and  blind  way 
to  philosophize  on  the  phenomena  of  nature. 

"  But  it  may  be  replied  that  the  idea  of  solidity  and 
firmness  so  enters  into  the  radical  meaning  of  the 
word  and  its  cognates  that  we  are  forced  to  believe 
that  Moses  himself  thought  that  there  really  was  a 
strong  solid  ai-ch  above  the  earth,  and  intended  to  be 
so  understood.     Let  ns  see. 

"  Turning  to  the  lexicon  I  find  :  ^Baka,  the  root  of 
rahia;  to  beat,  to  stamp,  to  beat  out — that  is,  to  spread 
out  or  to  expand  by  beating,'  etc.  Cognate  with  this 
is,  '  liCihah,  to  beat  or  pound,  especially  to  spread  out 
by  beating,  to  beat  thin.'  Then  there  is,  '  Rikyhn^ 
plates  or  laminae;'  ^ Rakia,  a  thin  cake  or  wafer;' 
^ Mahkah^  thinness,  something  thin;  hence  the  temple, 
or  part  of  the  head  ; '  '  Rak,  thin,  lean,  said  of  cattle ;' 
'  Rahach,  to  spice  [the  primary  idea  seems  to  lie  in 
the  pounding  of  the  aromatic  substances] ;  hence 
rekach,  spice,  and  rokach,  a  perfumer,'  from  the 
same  idea  of  pounding  np  the  aromatic  substances. 

*  Read  these  two  texts  in  the  light  of  the  full  meaning  of  rakia,  as 
it  will  be  developed  further  on.  "  In  the  rakia  of  his  power  "  will  be 
found  a  wealth  of  meaning  hitherto  unsuspected. 


84  GENESIS  I.  AKD  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"Thus  far,  at  least,  there  is  nothing  denoting  solid- 
ity or  firmness  involved  in  rakia  itself,  or  in  any 
word  allied  to  it.* 

"  In  all  cases,  as  far  as  I  can  discover,  it  and  its  cog- 
nates are  used  to  denote  tliinness  or  expansion,  almost 
always  associated  with  more  or  less  noise  and  violence. 

"  The  absence  fi-om  the  Hebrew  word  of  the  idea  of 
solidity  and  firmness,  which  ai-e  the  very  essence  of 
a  firmament,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  statements 
in  Bible  dictionaries.  This  greatly  perplexed  me 
at  first;  but  when  I  turned  to  the  passages  referred 
to  as  pi'oofs   my  perplexity  was  turned  to  surprise; 

*  According  to  the  Hebraist's  Vade  Mecum,  the  verb  raka  occurs 
only  eleven  times  in  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible,  all  of  which  I  quote  as 
translated  in  our  common  version : 

1.  Ezek.  vi,  11,  "  Smite  with  thine  hand  and  stamp  with  thy  foot." 

2.  Ezek.  XXV,  6,  "Because  .  .  .  thou  hast  stamped  with  the  feet." 

3.  2  Sara,  xxii,  43,  "  I  did  stamp  them  as  the  mire  of  the  street,  and 
did  spread  them  abroad^ 

4.  Isa.  xi,  19,  "The  goldsmitli  spreadeth  it  over  with  gold." 

5.  Isa.  xlii,  5,  "  He  tliat  spread  forth  tlie  earth." 

6.  Isa.  xliv,  24,  "  Tliat  stretclieth  forth  the  heavens  (shamayim) 
alone  :  that  spreadeth  abroad  the  earth  by  myself." 

I.  Psa.  cxxxvi,  6,  "To  him  that  stretched  out  the  earth." 

8.  Exod.  xxxix,  3,  "  They  did  beat  the  gold  into  thin  plates. ^^ 

9.  Num.  xvi,  39,  "  And  they  were  made  broad  plates,''''  etc. 

10.  Jer.  X,  9,  "Silver  spread  into  plates  is  brought  from  Tarshish." 

II.  Job  xxxvii,  18,  "  Hast  thou  with  him  spread  out  the  sky?  "  etc. 
An  examination  of  the  above  reveals  several  interesting  facts.     In 

1  and  2  the  idea  seems  to  be  purely  the  noise  made  by  stamping  witli 
the  foot  either  in  despair  or  in  exultation,  and  the  word  o-aka  is  justly 
rendered  in  the  Septuagint  hj  psopheo,  and  with  no  reference  to  the 
other  idea  of  spreading  out  or  expanding.  In  3  there  is  no  reference 
to  the  sound,  but  only  to  the  spreading  out ;  so  in  4,  where  raka  is 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  85 

for  in  nearly  all  that  were  quoted  as  evidence  of  the 
Hebrews'  belief  in  a  iirinaraent  the  word  in  question 
is  not  to  be  fonnd.  In  Smith's  BiUe  DlGtionary  I 
find  the  following :  '  Heaven ;  there  are  four  He- 
brew words  thus  rendered  in  the  Old  Testament: 
First,  Rakia,  a  solid  expanse.  Through  its  open  lat- 
tice (Gen,  vii,  11 ;  2  Kings  vii,  2,  19),  or  doors  (Psa. 
Ixxviii,  23),  the  dew  and  snow  and  hail  are  poured 
upon  the  earth  (Job  xxxviii,  22,  37).  This  firm  vault 
Job  describes  as  beinff  strono;  as  a  molten  looking- 
glass  (Job  xxxvii,  18).'  [In  not  one  of  these  seven 
texts  does  rakia  occur  !] 

translated  by  perichruseo.  In  5,  6,  7,  it  may  be  that  the  alkision  is 
only  to  the  spreading  out ;  but  to  the  ear  of  one  who,  with  the  writer, 
believes  that  the  Bible  was  in  a  very  real  sense  indited  by  Him  who 
was  himself  the  Maker  of  that  first  rakia,  there  is  in  the  use  of  the 
word  here  an  echo  of  the  tumultuous  deafening  violence  when  first 
the  down-pouring  oceans  beat  upon  the  hot  lava  crust  whose  ridges 
and  peaks  then  formed  the  rough  face  of  the  earth.  "Whether  this  be 
so  may  not  be  as  clear  to  others ;  but  I  think  all  will  agree  that  our 
English  version,  to  spread  abroad  or  forth,  or  to  stretch  out,  is  reason- 
ably near  the  original;  while  the  stereoo  of  the  Septuagint  is  a  gross 
mistranslation,  or,  rather,  it  is  no  translation  at  all,  but  the  substitu- 
tion of  another  idea  to  accord  with  the  philosophy  of  their  own  day. 

With  tlie  same  unhappy  prepossession  in  favor  of  solidity  the 
Seventy  have  rendered  this  word  raka  in  11  by  stereoo,  as  well  as  in 
5,  6,  7. 

In  8,  9,  10,  there  is  the  proper  meaning  of  beating  into  tldn  plates, 
not  plates  thick  and  strong. 

It  is  curious  to  note  that  this  word  has  always  its  proper  render- 
ing in  tlie  Septua;4int  except  where  the  philosophy  of  that  da}'  is 
concerned.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  I  am  led  to  the  conclusion  that 
these  texts  confirm  wluit  has  been  said  in  the  previous  article  about 
tlie  signification  of  rakia. 


86  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

" 'It  is  transparent  as  a  sappliire  and  splendid  as 
crystal,  Dan,  xii,  3  ;  Ezek.  i,  22  [I  have  discussed 
these  a  few  paragraphs  back]  ;  Exod.  xxiv,  lU  [inkia 
not  fonnd  here]  ;  over  which  rests  the  throne  of  God, 
Isa.  Ixvi,  1  [no  rakial,  and  Ezek.  i,  26  [already  dis- 
cussed a  few  paragraphs  back] ;  and  which  is  opened 
for  the  descent  of  angels  or  for  prophetic  vision.  Gen. 
xxviii,  17;  Ezek.  i,  1  [found  in  neither  of  these].  In 
it,  like  gems  or  golden  lamps,  the  vstars  are  fixed,*  Gen. 
i,  14,  19  [found  here,  and  already  discussed] ;  and  the 
whole  magnificent,  immovable  structure,  Jer.  xxxi, 
37  [rakia  not  here],  has  its  pillars  or  strong  founda- 
tions, Psa.  xviii,  7  ;  2  Sam.  xxii,  8 ;  Job  xxiv,  11 ' 
[rakia  in  none  of  these]. 

"  The  writer,  the  Rev.  Frederick  W.  Farrar,  late 
Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  makes  a  clear 
case  for  a  solid  support,  or  firmament,  until  one  finds 
that  in  fifteen  of  his  proof-texts  (the  only  ones  that 
have  any  bearing  upon  the  question  of  solidity)  rakia 
does  not  occur.  Nothing  can  be  learned  from  them 
as  to  the  use  of  this  word.  Whatever  they  teach  as 
to  other  words,  it  is  clear  they  tell  us  nothing  about 
rakia. 

"  He  adds  :  '  In  the  Authorized  Version  heaven  and 


*  "In  it,  like  gems  or  golden  lamps,  the  stars  are  fixed."  Mosea 
makes  no  such  statement.  He  simply  says  God  made  the  stars,  and 
placed  them  in  the  expanse.  It  would  be  much  belter  not  to  put 
words  into  his  month. 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  87 

heavens  are  used  to  render  not  only  ruTtia,  bnt  also  sha- 
mayim,  onaroin,  and  sJichaMm,  for  which  reason  we 
have  thrown  together  under  the  former  word  the  chief 
features  ascribed  by  Jewish  writers  to  this  portion  of 
the  universe.'  Unfortunately  for  this  exphanation, 
heaven  and  heavens  are  not  used  in  a  single  instance  in 
tlie  Authorized  Version  to  render  rakia.  In  most 
cases  shamayim  is  the  word  so  translated.  "Whether 
the  Hebrews  attached  the  idea  of  solidity  to  that  does 
not  concern  our  present  inquiry.  It  will  suffice  to 
say  that  it  means  literally  '  heights,'  and  thei-e  is  no 
more  reason  for  thinking  that  they  took  literally  such 
expressions  as  the  '  windows  of  heaven '  (not  of  the 
raMa,  remember,  but  of  the  shamayim)  any  more 
than  that  tiiey  did  that  verse  in  Job  which  speaks  of 
'  the  bottles  of  heaven '  (also  shamayim). 

"  From  all  this  it  is  clear,  I  think,  that  the  science 
which  demanded  crystalline  spheres  to  upliold  tlie 
heavenly  bodies  was  of  a  much  later  date  than  tlie 
time  in  which  it  was  written,  '  He  stretcheth  *  the 
north  over  the  empty  place,  and  hangeth  the  earth 
upon  nothing.' 

*  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  "  rakia "  is  not  employed  here. 
The  reason  is  obvious :  there  is  no  possible  allusion,  near  or  remote, 
to,  or  connection  with,  the  noise  and  violence  wiiich  help  to  make 
the  radical  meaning  of  the  word.  The  distinction  is  nice,  but  emi- 
nently philosophical,  and  in  the  light  of  present  knowledge  perfectly 
intelligible.  Every  fact  known  to  science  was  infinitely  better  known 
to  God  then  than  it  ever  can  be  to  us.  As  far  as  he  is  concerned  an 
anachronism  is  impossible. 


88  GBNESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"What,  then,  is  the  meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed 
by  rakia  f  From  a  careful  consideration  of  all  the 
places  where  this  word  and  its  cognates  occur  it  seems 
that  the  radical  idea  of  the  verb  is  {a)  to  spread  out 
with  violence  and  noise,  or,  rather,  it  is  to  make  thin 
in  that  manner.  Its  sound  is  indicative  of  its  meaning 
— a  thing  common  in  all  languages,  as,  for  example, 
we  speak  of  the  buzzing  of  a  saw,  the  whizzing  of 
an  arrow,  etc.  Rak-a,  or  its  cognate  rak-kak^  rep- 
resents to  the  ear  very  closely  the  noise  or  racket  of 
the  mechanic  beating  or  hammering  thin  a  piece 
of  metal — a  sound  more  common  in  the  times  before 
the  process  of  rolling  out  metal  had  been  invented. 
It  is  noise  and  violence,  not  firmness  nor  solidity. 
Then  succeeds  the  more  abstract  idea  (5),  an  expand- 
ing or  thinning  produced  by  violent  action  accompa- 
nied by  loud  noise.  Lastly  (c),  there  is  the  idea  of 
mere  expanse,  without  any  particular  reference  to  the 
violence  or  noise. 

"  Such  changes  of  meaning  are  common  in  all  lan- 
guages. We  may  say :  '  Casting  iron  is  very  hard 
work.'  The  hearer  at  once  thiidcs  of  the  severe 
muscular  labor  of  the  men  engaged.  If  we  say, 
'  Casting  iron  requires  much  skill,'  he  will  think  of 
the  proper  mixing  of  different  qualities  of  the  metal, 
of  the  best  methods  of  melting,  and  the  means  of 
determining  the  proper  temperature.  But  if  we  say, 
'  The  boat  is  loaded  with  castings,'   he  thinks  only  of 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  89 

the  results  of  that  operation,  and,  although  the  word 
'  casting '  carries  with  it  a  suggestion  of  the  heat  and 
labor,  yet  he  will  not  thuik  of  them, 

"  The  changes  in  the  meaning  of  rakia  are  analo- 
gous to  these.  It  is  only  at  the  present  day,  when 
science  has  revealed  the  scene  at  the  time  when  the 
first  deposition  and  separation  of  the  waters  occurred, 
that  it  has  become  possible  to  grasp  the  wealth  of 
meaning  in  the  word  rakia. 

"  This  is  the  story  which  geology  tells  :  At  a  distance 
back  in  eternity  whose  remoteness  our  arithmetic  is 
powerless  to  compute,  but  after  the  eiu'th  had  ceased 
to  be  self-luminous  and  a  somewhat  lower  temperature 
had  changed  the  invisible  vapor  of  the  future  oceans 
into  dense  masses  of  clouds  hundreds  of  miles  in  thick- 
ness, the  time  came  for  the  second  divine  fiat.  In  the 
language  of  science,  the  temperature  had  fallen  to  the 
point  at  which  the  waters  began  to  condense  and  de- 
scend upon  the  yet  hot  earth-surface.  Think  of  the 
noise,  the  violence,  ten  million  Niagaras  pouring  down 
at  once  into  as  many  Etnas.  No  pencil  can  paint  the 
scene ;  but  we  may  imagine  something  of  the  hot 
rocks  rent  by  the  sudden  cooling,  the  noise  of  the  fall- 
ing oceans,  the  added  uproar  of  such  electric  disturb- 
ances as  never  will  be  known  again  until  the  '  crack 
of  doom.'  In  throes  such  as  these  began  the  clearing 
of  our  atmosphere,  perfected  through  aeons  of  time, 
until  the  ocean-hold  in  g  cloud  was  thinned   down  to 


90  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

those  that  now  float  in  the  upper  air;  the  thick  dark- 
ness caused  by  the  dense  masses  of  primeval,  misty 
vapors  that  rested  on  the  surface  of  the  earth,  grew 
less  and  less,  until  at  last  the  light  of  tlie  sun  passed 
freely  through,  and  a  transparent  expanse  divided  the 
waters  from  the  waters.  When,  in  after  ages,  there 
came  a  seer  to  record  what  had  taken  place,  we  may 
imagine  him  searching  to  the  foundation  his  mother- 
tongue  to  find  the  word  which  should  best  depict  the 
scene.  Guided  by  the  All-wise,  he  selected  7'ahia,  a 
word  which  no  other  language  can  equal  in  power  of 
conveying  the  threefold  idea  of  an  expanse  produced 
by  violent  physical  action  and  accompanied  by  noise. 
'Expanse,'  the  best  word  our  English  can  give,  is 
poor  indeed  in  comparison. 

"  In  these  senses  {a,  h,  c)  the  false  philosophy  of  the 
Septuagint  disappears,  and  in  its  place  is  absolute 
truth.  If  the  texts  above  quoted,  containing  this  word, 
be  read  in  this  light  we  shall  find  dominant  the  sec- 
ondary idea  (c) — that  is,  an  expanse  only,  without  ref- 
erence to  tiie  mode  of  its  formation. 

"  In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  all  the  meanings  are 
found.  In  verses  6  and  7  it  is,  '  Let  there  be  a  thin- 
ning or  expanding  in  the  midst  of  the  waters,'  carry- 
ing with  the  word  an  echo  of  the  violence  and  noise 
of  the  process.  In  verse  8  the  writer  sjieaks  of  the 
expanse  after  the  noise  and  tumult  had  subsided. 
It    was  the  quiet,  open  expanse  extending  through 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  91 

and  beyond  all  limits  of  vision,  wliicli  God  called 
heaven. 

"Again,  in  verses  14, 15, 17,  and  20  occurs  the  same 
nse  as  in  verse  8.  It  is  the  completed  expanse  of  to- 
day, carrying  with  it,  save  in  the  suggestive  sound  of 
the  woi'd,  no  reminiscence  of  the  primeval  throes 
which  accompanied  its  birth. 

"•  This  combined  idea  of  thinning  and  expansion,  as 
here  aj^plied,  comes  somewhere  near  to  that  conveyed 
by  our  words,  '  an  open  space.'  But  ralia,  in  its 
intense  truthfulness,  describes  the  exact  fact.  To  it 
no  captious  criticism  can  contrive  objections  ;  whereas, 
had  Moses  said,  '  Let  there  be  an  open  space  in  the 
midst  of  the  waters,'  we  should  have  been  told  that 
such  an  expression  was  clear  proof  of  his  ignorance  of 
the  depths  of  science  which  the  future  was  to  reveal ; 
for  all  philosophy  teaches  that  the  apparently  open 
space  is  absolutely  full,  and  that,  so  far  as  we  know, 
there  is  nowhere  in  the  imiverse  a  vacuum.  Thus 
that  which  has  been  claimed  as  an  argument  against 
the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  account  is  found,  when  tested 
in  the  light  of  science,  to  be  a  witness  in  its  favor. 

"  Considering  the  general  belief  at  the  time  of  the 
apostles  in  a  crystalline  arch  over  the  earth  to  support 
the  heavenly  bodies,  it  is  very  remarkable  that  no 
expression  is  used  by  them  indicating  such  a  thing. 
The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  familiar  with 
the  Septuagint  and  the  use  in  it  of  stereomaj   yet 


92  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

they  carefully  avoid  the  word.  Indeed,  it  occurs  but 
once  in  the  entire  New  Testament ;  and  then  it  is 
applied  to  the  faith  of  the  early  believers  in  the  ex- 
pression, '  the  steadfastness  of  your  faith '  (Col.  ii,  5). 

"  I  cannot  close  this  article  without  speaking  of  a 
text  often  quoted  by  friends,  as  well  as  foes,  to  show 
that  the  Hebrews,  or  at  least  the  countrymen  of  Job, 
did  believe  in  a  solid  crystalline  arch.  It  occui's  in 
Job  xxxvii,  18.  Our  version  reads  :  'Hast  thou  with 
him  spread  out  the  sky,  which  is  strong,  and  as  a 
molten  looking-glass?'  The  word  here  rendered 
'  strong '  does  not  mean  strong  in  the  sense  of  solid 
or  firm,  but,  as  its  derivation  shows,  strong  in  the  gense 
of  securely  tied  or  fastened.  It  is  the  idea  of  binding 
up  to  its  place  securely,  not  by  solid  mason-work,  nor 
even  by  nails,  but  by  bands  and  ligatures.  'Molten  ' 
here  is  used  in  the  sense  of  melted  or  fluid.  I  would 
sufforest  the  following  translation  as  more  literal : 
'  Hast  thou  with  him  spread  out  the  securely  fastened 
sky,  as  it  were  a  liquid  mirror?' 

"  If  the  speaker  had  really  desired  to  compare  the 
sky  to  something  solid  and  firm  he  would  never  have 
compared  it  to  a  molten  (in  the  sense  of  cast,  as  cast 
brass,  for  example)  mirror.  A  hammered  mirror 
would  have  been  stiffer  than  one  made  by  casting. 
"VVe  have  the  notion  of  stiffness  and  firmness  in  con- 
nection with  cast  metal  from  our  familiarity  with  cast 
iron.     I  doubt  if  Job  knew  any  thing  of  that  metal. 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  93 

Silver,  brass,  or  other  metal,  except  iron,  is  softest 
when  cast  and  becomes  firm  bj  lianmiering. 

"  Elibu  compares  the  sky  (the  clouds,  literally)  reflect- 
ing the  brilliancy  of  an  eastern  sun  to  a  glowing  molten 
(melted)  mirror,  somehow  securely  held  by  the 
Almighty.  He  mingles  the  thought  with  that,  so 
natural  to  dwellers  in  that  land,  of  a  canopj"  stretched 
out  overhead,  and,  in  tent-style,  tied  up  with  bands 
and  cords.  He  says  to  Job  :  '  Are  you  so  great  and 
strong  that  you  can  do  that  ? '  Pointing  to  the 
bright  clouds,  he  asks :  '  Can  you  with  him  spread 
out  these  clouds,  so  securely  held  in  their  places  and 
sending  back  the  light  as  if  they  were  a  mirror  of 
glowing,  melted  metal  I ' 

"  I  snbrait  that  this  text  lias  done  forced  duty  long 
enough,  and  that  henceforth  it  be  permitted  to  speak 
to  us  as,  I  doubt  not,  it  spoke  to  Job. 

"  N^o  one  has  the  right  to  draw  from  the  usual  render- 
ing, even  if  it  were  correct,  any  argument  against  the 
insjiiration  of  the  Bible.  Job's  tliree  friends  were 
rebuked.  We  have  no  intimation  that  their  philoso- 
phy was  inspired  any  more  than  their  theology,  '^o 
more  responsibility  attaches  to  the  Bible  for  their 
sayings  than  for  those  of  Pharaoh  or  others  whose  words 
are  recorded.  The  largest  inference  that  can  be  justly 
drawn  is  that,  if  the  common  translation  is  correct. 
Job  and  his  friends  had  erroneous  views  of  the  firma- 
ment, as  hundreds  of  good  men  have  had  since." 


94  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

The  Professor  listened  patiently  while  I  read ;  then 
he  said :  "  I  must  admit  that  the  idea  of  firmness 
and  solidity  seems  qnite  foreign  to  the  Hebrew  word, 
and  I  must  withdraw  what  I  had  regarded  as  a  serious 
objection.  But,  admitting  all  this,  we  are  not  yet  out 
of  difficulty,  for  Moses  teaches  all  this  occurred  in 

Objection    18.  o"^   ^^J5    t^^6   second    day,  he   calls   it. 
All  till  lately  u^^til  Scientists  had  shown  the  absolute  ab- 

believed  the 

firmament  was  surdity  of  sucli   a  Statement  all  biblicists 

made  inside  of  i      i  i  • 

twenty-four  agreed  that  this    stage    of    progress    was 
begun  and  ended  in  twenty-four  hours — or 
rather  in  twelve  hours,  for  they  excluded  the  night — 
and,  I  maj^  add,  many  believe  so  now," 

Once  more  I  protest  against  bringing  in  the  opinions 
of  others,  as  they  are  of  no  importance  save  so  far  as 
they  are  sustained  by  the  words  of  Moses.  It  is  only 
the  narrative  that  any  body  claims  to  be  inspired.  In 
that  I  find  no  assertion  that  this  work  was  done  in 
one  day,  nor,  indeed,  any  reference  whatever  to  the 
time  employed.  The  writer  says,  "  God  made  the 
'  rakia,'  and  divided  the  waters  which  were  under 
the  '  rakia '  from  the  waters  which  were  a])ove  the 
'rakia;'  and  it  was  so,*  and  God  called  the  'rakia' 

*  The  translators  of  the  Septuagint,  with  tlieir  desire  to  improve 
upon  and  correct  the  errors  of  Moses,  removed  the  words  "and  it 
was  so  "  from  the  seventh  verse,  where  Moses  put  them,  and  annexed 
tliem  to  the  sixth.  To  the  seventh  they  added  the  words,  "and  God 
saw  that  it  was  good" — kalon — that  is,  beautiful  and  good.  In  hke 
manner  tliey  interpolated  into  verse  20  the  words,  "and  it  was  so." 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  95 

heaven."  And  after  that  a  day  is  spoken  of  which  is 
called  the  second  day.  It  marks  the  completion  of 
this  act  and  separates  it  from  the  next.  As  mark- 
ing the  conclusion  of  so  great  an  event  as  the  depo- 
sition of  the  waters,  the  clearing  of  the  atmosphere, 
the  admission  of  the  sun's  rays,  and  the  conseqnent 
possibility  of  life,  was  it  not  well  worthy  of  the  dis- 
tinction? It  was  the  second  of  these  epoch-marking 
days. 

"  Certainly,"  he  answered,  "  the  da}^  which  marked 
the  end  of  that  great  step  in  world-prog-  objection    i9. 

T,  .-,  ..  With  such  liter- 

ress  was  well  worth  connnemoratmg.  aiismwhatwm 
But  this  is  a  new  kind  of  Genesis  which  ^^'^  f '^^ 

rest   of   the 
keeps   so  close  to  the  letter  of  the  text.   Bible  ? 

Think  to  what  absurd  results  it  will  lead.     What,  by 

such  strict  literalism,  will  become  of  the  rest  of  the 

Bible  ? " 

I  find  nothing  absurd  here.  As  to  other  parts  of 
the  Bible,  they  are  not  now  under  consideration.  To 
speak  of  them  would  lead  us  away  from  the  work 
which  we  have  undertaken.  I  will  say,  however,  in 
reply  to  your  question  that  I  expect  to  use  in  all  parts 
of  the  Bible  the  same  common  sense  which  other 
books  demand,  and  which,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  is  not 
opposed  to  any  thing  in  this  chapter. 

But  to  return  to  the  matter  in  hand.  Will  you  tell 
me  what  was  the  condition  of  the  atmosphere  when — 
and  for  a  long  time  after — the  waters  were  deposited  ? 


96  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"  It  is  evident  from  the  immense  quantities  of  car- 
bon in  the  coal  and  lignites,  all  of  which  must  once 
liave  been  in  the  atmosphere,  that  it  was  heavily 
loaded  with  carbonic  acid  gas."  * 

Could  such  an  atmosphere  have  supported  the 
higher  forms  of  life? 

"  No.  It  would  have  been  fatal  to  all  pi-esent  air- 
breathing  animals,  unless  possibly  some  of  the  lowest 
forms  might  have  managed  to  live.  Certainly  no  ver- 
tebrate Cduld  have  endured  it.  But  why  do  you  ask 
these  questions  ?  What  have  they  to  do  with  this 
account  ?  " 

Much,  as  you  will  see.  If  you  will  read  the  narra- 
tive through  you  will  notice  that  tlie  verdict  "good" 
follows  each  stage  of  progress  from  the  iirst  day  to 
the  last,  except  this,  an  exception  that  has  puzzled 
many  a  reader,  and  which  some — the  Septuagint,  for 
example — have  tried  to  remedy  by  interpolating  such 
a  verdict  here.  "  Good,"  in  all  such  matters  as  these, 
can  have  no  reference  to  moral  quality,  but  only  to 
complete  fitness  for  some  purj)ose,  which  I  take  to  be 
for  the  use  of  the  coming  man.  And  certainly  an  at- 
mosphere loaded  with  poison  was  not  "good."  This 
omission — unintelligible  down  almost  to  the  i^rescnt 

*  Whether  or  not  those  geologists  are  right  who  assure  us  that 
during  the  Carboniferous  age  the  atmosphere  could  not  have  been 
loaded  with  carbonic  acid,  is,  in  reference  to  tlie  period  of  wliieli  I  am 
speal<ing,  a  matter  of  no  consequence.  The  "  second  day  "  antedates, 
bv  millions  of  vears,  the  Carboniferous  age. 


OUR  SECOND  EVENING.  97 

day — is  another  of  those  significant  circumstances  that 
go  to  prove  the  exhaustive  knowledge  possessed  by 
whoever  was  the  real  author  of  this  chapter. 

"  This  certainly,"  said  the  Professor,  "  is  very  curi- 

^  ous  and  very  difiicult  to  reconcile  with  any  theory  of 

chance.     It  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  facts,  and 

yet  they  have  been  known  for  scarcely  a  generation." 

With  this  our  discussion  ended  for  that  evening. 
We  agreed  to  meet  at  the  same  place  soon. 


98  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


OUR   THIRD    EVENING. 


THE     THEME. 
Genesis  i,  9-13. 

9  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be  gathered  together 
unto  one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land  ajypear :  and  it  was  so. 

10  And  God  called  the  dry  land  Earth;  and  the  gathering  together 
of  the  waters  called  he  Seas :  and  God  saw  that  it  vms  good. 

1 1  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yieldi7ig 
seed,  and  the  fruit-tree  rjielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  ivhoseseed  is  in  itself, 
upon  the  earth :  and  it  tuas  so. 

12  And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  and  herb  yielding  seed  after  his 
kind,  and  the  tree  yielding  fruit,  ivhoseseed  was  in  itself*  after  his  kind: 
and  God  saiu  that  it  ivas  good. 

13  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  third  day. 

The  Professor  took  iiji  the  Bible  and  read  the 
nintli  and  the  following  four  verses,  then  said,  "  How 
shall  we  continue  the  discussion  ? " 

I  proposed  we  should  go  through  the  account, 
statement  by  statement ;  inquire  at  each  what  does 
the  science  of  to-day  teach  in  reference  to  that  par- 
ticular matter,  and  see  whether  there  is  agreement, 
or  whether  there  is  the  contradiction  which  is  by 
many  so  confidently  claimed. 

The  nintli  verse  teaches  that  what  is  now  dry  land 
was  once  under  water.     Is  that  true  ?     Was  it  so  ? 

.    *  In  wliicli  (fruit)  is  its  (the  tree's)  seed — that  is,  fruit-tree  wliose 
seed  is  in  its  fruit.     See  Dr.  Conant's  Genesis  on  this  verse. 


OUR  THIRD  EVENING.  99 

"  Professor  Dana  sajs,  '  The  envelope  (of  water) 
was  nearl}^  or  quite  universal,'  or,  as  Professor  Hux- 
ley puts  it  in  his  New  York  lectnres,  '  all  that  is  now 
dry  land  was  once  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.'  The 
continents  at  first  formed  vast  submarine  plateaux 
lying  some  hundred  feet,  or  possibly  fathoms,  beneath 
the  surface  "  (Dana's  Manual  of  Geology,  P='ge  160), 

Then,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  you  must  admit  that 
this  command,  "Let  the  waters  be  gathered  unto  one 
place,  and  let  the  dry  land  appear,"  stands  in  its  true 
order,  to  wit,  after  the  completed  deposition  of  the 
waters  once  all  suspended  as  vapor  above  the  earth. 
Is  there  any  error  in  this  ? 

"  No  ;  I  cannot  say  that  there  is." 

I  note,  too,  I  continued,  that  the  writer  says.  Let 
the  waters  be  gathered  unto  one  place,  and  it  was  so 
done.  They  were  gathered  unto  one  place.  Is  not 
that  right  according  to  geography  ?  Are  not  present 
oceans  and  seas  really  one  body  occupying  one  great 
depression  in  the  earth's  surface ;  the  different  names 
being  only  for  convenience  to  designate  parts  of  one 
great  whole  ? 

"Yes,  And  I  must  say  it  is  remarkable  that  a 
Hebrew,  with  the  little  geographical  knowledge  of 
his  day,  should  have  so  written.  There  were  three 
large  bodies  of  water  known  to  him — the  Mediterra- 
nean, the  Bed  Sea,  and  the  Persian  Gulf  or  Sea,  and 
it  is  unlikely  that  he  knew  that  they  were  connected. 


700  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

It  would  have  been  the  most  natural  thing  in  the 
world,  and  from  his  stand-point  the  onlj  right  thing 
to  say,  '  Let  the  waters  be  gathered  into  not  one  place, 
but  into  their  places.'  Yes ;  the  account  is  right,  and 
I  must  admit  the  fact  is  a  very  surprising  one. 

"  But,  following  these  statements,  there  appears  to 
be  one  of  those  blunders  of  which  I  spoke  when  you 
proposed  this  discussion,  one  which  destroys  all  belief 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  narrative.  For  you  must 
admit  that  one  falsehood  as  completely  disproves  all 
claim  to  a  divine  origin  as  if  there  were  many.  I 
refer  to  the  sudden  and  abrupt  character  of  the 
account.  The  writer  says,  or  at  least  we  are  so  told, 
that  the  dry  land  a})peared  instantly,  or,  at  most,  in  a 
Errorso.  "The  few  liours.  God  Said,  'Let  the  dry  land 
dry  land  ap-  ai^pear ,'  and  at  once  it  I'ose  all  comi^lete 

peared  instant-       i  i         '  i 

ly-"  above  the  waters,  just  as  in  Eastern  tales 

when  the  magic  name  of  Solomon  is  pronounced 
palaces  rise  in  a  night.  Now  every  geologist  knows 
that  the  appearing  of  the  dry  land  was  a  very  long 
process,  beginning  unnumbered  ages  in  the  past, 
and  continuing  through  archasan,  paleozoic,  and 
mesozoic  times,  down  through  most  of  the  tertiary, 
until  its  completion  in  the  comparatively  recent  plio- 
cene. I  say  '  comparatively  recent,'  because  it  is 
very  near  this  end  of  the  geological  record,  but  far 
enough  distant  for  all  that." 

Then    this    blunder,    this    fatal    blunder,   depends 


OUR  THIRD  EVENING.  101 

upon  whether  Moses  says  the  appearance  of  tlie  dry 
land  was  an  instantaneons  or  an  ahnost  instantaneous 
act  which  immediately  followed  the  fiat.  Please 
show  me  where  he  says  so. 

"  Yon  ask  me  to  show  you  what  no  one  supposes  is 
in  the  account  in  so  many  words.  But  is  it  not  fairly 
implied  ?  Moses  does  not  say  any  thing  about  the 
process  being  a  long  one." 

True ;  but  not  saying  it  is  a  very  different  matter 
from  saying  just  the  contrar3\  Nor  can  we  justly 
draw  any  such  inference  from  the  mere  juxtaposition 
of  the  command,  and  the  account  of  its  accomplish- 
ment. We  admit  this  principle  every- where  else. 
Were  I  to  say,  "  Na]x)leon  was  banished  to  St.  Helena, 
and  there  he  died,"  could  I,  with  any  fairness,  be 
charged  with  asserting  that  he  died  immediately  or 
very  soon  after  he  arrived  on  that  island  ?  Implication 
has  its  office,  but  that  is  not  to  prove  any  thing  ;  at 
most  it  is  only  suggestive,  and  needs  to  be  tested  in 
every  possible  manner.  No;  the  error  of  which  you 
speak  is  not  here. 

"  But  I  heard  a  minister  once  preach  from  the  text, 
'He  spake,  and  it  was  done,'  and  to  him  it  was  proof 
positive  that  the  creative  work  was  done  instantly — 
no  delay  whatever. 

"  To  me,  of  course,  it  proved  nothing,  as  the  Bible, 
in  my  estimation,  is  no  more  than  any  other  good 
book;  but  to  yon,  who  profess  to  receive  it  as  from 


102  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

God,  the  case  is  different,  and  I  do  not  see  how  you 
avoid  the  eonchision." 

We  agi-eed  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  first  twenty- 
seven  verses  of  Genesis ;  and  as  they  were  written 
hundreds  of  years  before  your  text  they  are  quite 
independent  of  it.  I  will  say,  however,  that  I  see  in 
it  only  obedience — prompt  obedience,  I  admit;  but 
that  consists  in  at  once  beginning  to  obey.  The  act 
of  obedience,  in  all  cases,  requires  more  or  less  time; 
but  neither  the  text  quoted  nor  this  story  gives  the 
slightest  intimation  as  to  how  much  time  was  re- 
quired in  this  instance. 

"  If,  as  you  insist,  we  are  to  hold  to  the  letter  of 
the  account,  I  must  of  course  admit  that  it  does  not 
say  or  necessarily  imply  that  the  uprising  of  the  land 
was  a  short  process,  and  I  suppose  I  must  withdraw 
my  objection,* 

*  I  add  here  some  remarks  in  regard  to  the  time  when  the  conti- 
nents were  completed,  as  they  are  necessary  to  a  comprehension  of 
tlie  subject,  and  to  meet  objections  which  others  who  do  not  possess 
the  Professor's  knowledge  of  geology  may  advance. 

"In  the  tertiary  there  was  (1)  the  finishing  of  tlie  rocky  substratum 
of  the  continents;  (2)  the  expansion  of  the  continental  areas  to  their 
full  extent,  or  their  essentially  permanent  recovery  from  the  waters 
of  the  ocean ;  (3)  the  elevation  of  the  great  mountains  of  the  globe, 
or  a  considerable  portion  of  them,  through  a  large  portion  of  their 
height,  as  the  Alps,  the  Pyrenees,  Apennines,  Himalayas,  Andes, 
Rocky  Mountains,  the  loftiest  chains  on  tlie  globe — a  result  not  fully 
completed  until  the  close  of  the  tertiary  " — that  is,  in  the  pliocene. 

The  non-geological  student  will  do  well  to  study  the  above  care- 
fully. It  is  taken  from  Dana's  Manual  of  Geology,  page  586,  and  is 
sufficient  answer  to  any  who  may  claim  that  the  land  could  not  prop- 


OUR  THIRD  EVENING.  103 

"  But,"  continued  the  Professor,  "  what  does 
'  good  '  mean  here — '  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good  'I ' 
It  seems  a  misnomer  if  it  refers  to  moral  character." 

I  liave  ah-eady  said,  when  speaking  of  tlie  firma- 
ment and  of  light,  that  things  without  souls  can  be 
good  only  in  the  sense  of  being  fit  or  complete  for 
some  use  or  purpose.  I  take  this  to  be  the  only 
meaning  applicable  to  the  water  and  the  land.     The 

eriy  be  said  to  have  been  fully  developed  (or  caused  to  appear)  by 
the  end  of  the  tertiary,  because  large  portions  were  afterward  sub- 
merged and  additions  made  to  its  area.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  subsequent  submergences  were  only  temporary,  the  land  com- 
ing up  again  essentially  unchanged  in  its  outlines  and  grand  features. 
From  these  changes  there  resulted  little  more  than  a  more  convenient 
arrangement  of  the  gravels,  clays,  and  sands,  and  the  deposition  of  a 
final  coating  of  alluvium,  which  enriched  and  ultimately  beautified 
the  earth.  As  to  the  additions  to  the  area  of  the  continents  since  the 
pliocene — the  end  of  the  tertiary — they  consist  mainly  of  deltas,  or 
of  such  increase  as  came  from  local  coast  elevations.  All  combined 
are  inappreciable  in  comparison  with  the  broad  extent  of  the  laud  at 
tiie  close  of  that  period. 

Whatever  discrepancy  may  seem  to  exist  between  this  and  what 
has  been  said  as  to  the  completion  of  the  land  in  the  tertiary  does  not 
in  the  least  affect  the  harmony  of  the  Mosaic  statements  and  the 
facts  of  geology.  If  any  discrepancy  seems  to  exist  there,  it  arises 
from  leaving  the  words  of  Moses,  and  using  in  their  place  certain  in- 
ferences which  we  have  drawn  from  them.  He  does  not  say  that 
nothing  further  was  done  to  the  land,  but  only  that  the  land  and  sea 
had  then  arrived  at  a  condition  which,  in  the  eyes  of  the  divine 
World-builder,  was  good,  and  certainly  if  the  present  arrangement 
is  a  good  one — as  physical  geography  says  it  is — that  was. 

That  certain  finishing  touches  were  fondly  given  by  the  Master's 
hand  between  this  verdict  and  the  time  when  the  world  was  given 
to  man  is  at  least  fairly  intimated  by  the  fact  that  then  it  received  a 
higher  meed  of  approval.  It,  with  all  the  work  of  the  creative 
periods,  was  pronounced  "very  good." 


104  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

appropriateness  of  the  term  becomes  apparent  when  we 
consider  the  condition  of  the  earth  at  iirst  and  the 
changes  subsequently  undergone.  The  sea  then  covered 
all  the  earth.  The  waters,  from  the  quantity  of  lime, 
silica,  and  other  impurities  held  in  solution,  were  poi- 
sonous to  tlie  higher  forms  of  life  which  were  ultimately 
to  be  produced,  Not  only  was  tlie  land  at  first  under 
water,  but  it  was  merely  hardened  lava.  Soil  needed 
to  be  produced.  Internal  forces  began  slowly  to  lift  up 
the  submerged  continents.  Myriads  of  tiny  creatures 
set  to  work  to  remove  the  mineral  matters ;  marine 
vegetation  began  to  take  up  the  excess  of  carbonic  acid 
and  to  throw  back  the  oxygen,  to  make  a  better  at- 
mosphere. The  disintegration  of  the  rocks  by  lichens 
and  other  plants,  the  pounding  of  the  waves,  the  ac- 
tion of  fire  and  other  agencies,  slowly  reduced  the 
hard  lava  to  powder,  the  basis  of  all  soil.  This  needed 
to  be  enriched  by  the  lime  taken  from  the  sea  and 
by  carbonaceous  matter  from  the  decomposition  of 
plants  and  animals.  All  these,  worked  over  and  over, 
resulted  at  last  in  a  soil  able  to  sustain  the  final  de- 
velopment, the  highest  types  of  plants,  toward  which 
all  vegetation  tended.  The  land  then  was  appropri- 
ately said  to  be  good.  The  preparation  of  the  seas 
went  on  with  that  of  the  land,  till  they  attained  a 
condition  when  modern  types  of  fishes  could  live  in 
them.  They  were  then  entitled  to  and  embraced  in 
the  same  verdict  of  "  ffood." 


OUR  THIRD  EVENING.  105 

Geologically,  this  seems  to  have  been  pretty  well 
toward  the  end  of  the  tertiary. 

"  Whatever,"  said  the  Professor,  "  may  be  the  fact 
as  to  any  contradiction  thus  far  we  are  Error  21.  Tue 
now  coming  to  what  seems  to  me  a  fatal  order  is  wrong, 
one.  I  mean  the  order  of  these  events.  The  com- 
pletion of  the  land  and  seas  is  said  by  this  account  to 
have  preceded  all  kinds  of  plants,  or,  in  other  words, 
there  were  neither  plants  nor  animals  before  the  com- 
pletion of  land  and  seas.  Every  tyro  in  geology 
knows  that  this  is  not  true.  Tliere  were  plants  and 
animals,  too,  ages  upon  ages  before  that." 

I  knew  the  best  way  to  meet  his  difficulty  was  to 
turn  to  the  story  itself,  and  let  him  see  just  what  it 
says  ;   so  I  took  up  the  Bible  and  read  aloud  : 

II  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding 
seed,  and  the  fruit-tree  yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself, 
upon  the  earth :  and  it  was  so. 

12  And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  and  herb  yielding  seed  after  his 
kind,  and  the  tree  yielding  fruit,  whose  seed  was  in  itself*  after  his  kind: 
and  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

13  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  third  day. 

Where,  I  asked,  does  Moses  say  that  no  plants  or 
animals  preceded  these  ? 

"  No  ;  it  is  not  said  in  so  many  words,  but  he 
speaks  of  no  earlier  ones,  and  that  seems  to  me  about 
the  same  thing." 

*  In  which  (fruit)  is  its  (the  tree's)  seed — that  is,  fruit-tree  whose 
seed  is  in  its  fruit.     See  Dr.  Conant's  Genesis  on  this  verse. 


106  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

But  silence  is  not  denial.  All  tliat  can  be  justly 
said  is  that  Moses  speaks  of  certain  kinds  of  plants 
as  coming  after  the  completion  of  the  land  and  seas. 
Now,  is  this  true?  Geologists  say  that  the  last  great 
development — the  culmination  of  plant-life — occurred 
in  the  latter  ]3art  of  the  tertiary.  It  was  then  that 
the  vegetation  contemporaneous  with  Moses,  and  I 
may  add  with  ourselves,  made  its  appearance.  I 
then  took  up  De  la  Saporta's  Le  Monde  des  Plantes 
and  read  on  page  380  :  "  The  vegetable  kingdom  ac- 
quired its  characteristic  traits  long  before  the  animal 
had  comjileted  its  own  ;  so  that,  probably  before  the 
end  of  the  tertiary,  the  principal  groups,  and  even  the 
genera  that  compose  them,  the  vast  majority  of  our 
actual  flora,  were  established  in  the  limits  which  they 
now  occupy." 

Plant-life  did,  indeed,  begin  millions  of  years 
earlier,  but  present  genera  began  very  late  in  geolog- 
ical time.  The  question,  then,  turns  on  this.  What 
vegetation  did  the  author  of  this  story  have  in  mind? 
Was  it  the  almost  structureless  sea-weeds  which  for 
many  ages  were  the  only  plants  ?  Is  it  not  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt  that  he  intended  to  speak  of  the  vege- 
tation in  existence  when  the  story  was  given  ?  Moses 
knew  of  no  other,  and  if,  for  some  reason,  God  wished 
to  tell  of  the  plants  which  he  made  at  the  dawn  of  life, 
he  knew  too  much  to  call  them  "  grasses,  herbs,  and 
fruit-trees  bearino;  fruit  whose  seed  is  inside  of  it." 


OUR  THIRD  EVENING.  107 

Taking,  then,  the  story  to  mean  just  what  it  says, 
tlie  difficulty  vanishes,  the  order  is  all  right.  But 
the  difficulty  re-appears  when  we  leave  the  words  of 
Moses,  and,  in  order  to  sustain  certain  preconceived 
notions  of  our  own,  make  the  plants  he  names  mean 
sea-weeds.  "Wliat  right  have  we  to  take  such  a  lib- 
erty ? 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply  except  that 
"this  was  not  the  Genesis  that  he  had  heard  so  much 
about.  He  had  always  understood  that  it  told  of  the 
creation  of  all  plants  from  the  very  first,  and,  of 
course,  that  verses  11  and  12  were  meant  to  describe 
not  the  flora  of  to-day,  but  that  in  which  plant-life 
began.  If  such  really  is  the  meaning  it  teaches  se- 
rious error  ;  this  new  way  of  taking  the  words  to 
mean  simply  what  they  say  seems  to  dispose  of  objec- 
tions in  an  extraordinary  and  unceremonious  manner. 
But  there  is,"  he  added,  "  what  seemed  to  him  an  error 
in  the  order  of  this  and  the  next  period  which  a  mod- 
erate knowledge  of  vegetable  chemistry  gj^^j.  oo.  The 
would  have  prevented.  Moses  places,  that  order  wrong, 
liighly  organized  flora  before  the  creation  of  the  sun. 

"  We  know,  what  he  did  not,  that  such  vegetation 
could  not  exist  without  the  sun,  and  yet  he  puts  it  in 
the  third  period,  and  the  creation  of  the  sun  in  the 
fourth — the  sun  after  the  plants  !  There  can  be  no 
question  that  here  is  an  error  of  great  importance, 
showing  ignorance  of  a  vital  law  of  plant  existence." 


108  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

I  suggested  that  before  condemning  Moses  we 
should  see  whether  it  was  he  that  said  the  sun  was 
made  so  late,  or  whether  his  words  had  been  misun- 
derstood and  misinterpreted  under  the  influence  of  a 
false  science.  As  this  would  require  too  much  time 
for  the  present  evening  we  would  defer  it  till  the  next. 
So  we  dropped  it  for  the  present. 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  109 


OUR  FOURTH   EVENING. 


OUR  theme:  what  was  done  in  the  fourth  period. 
Genesis  i,  14-19. 

14  And  God  said,  Let  there  he  lights  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven 
to  divide  the  day  from  the  night.  15  And  let  them  he  for  signs,  and  for 
seasons,  and  for  days  and  years ;  and  let  them  he  for  lights  in  the  fir- 
mament of  the  heaven,  to  give  light  upon  the  earth.     And  it  was  so. 

[That  is,  the  transaction  was  completed,  the  fiat  was  obeyed,  and 
all  the  things  commanded  were  done.] 

16  And  God  made  two  great  lights;  the  greater  light  to  ride  the  day, 
and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night :  he  made  the  stars  also.  17  And 
God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth, 
18  And  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the  night,  and  to  divide  the  light 
from  the  dark7iess :  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

1 9  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  fourth  day. 

The  above,  except  as  to  the  division  into  para- 
graphs, is  the  common  version.  For  reasons  whicli  I 
shall  give  in  the  course  of  the  discussion  I  offer  the 
following  as  nearer  to  the  Hebrew. 

Yerses  14,  15.  And  God  said  :  "  Let  the  lights  in 
the  expanse  of  heaven  divide  between  the  day  and 
the  night ;  and  let  them  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons, 
and  for  days  and  years ;  and  let  them  be  for  lights 
in  the  expanse  of  heaven  to  give  light  upon  the 
earth."  And  it  was  so.  [Tlie  things  commanded 
were  done.] 

Yerses  16,  IT,  18.  (And  God  made  the  two  great 
lights  ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser 


no  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

lifflit  to  rule  tlie  niglit :  he  made  the  stars  also.  And 
God  set  them  in  the  expanse  of  heaven  to  give  light 
upon  tlie  earth,  and  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the 
night,  and  to  divide  between  the  light  and  the  dark- 
ness.)    And  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

Yerse  19.     And  'twas  evening  and  'twas  morning, 
the  fourth  day. 

It  was  several  days  before  the  Professor  came  to 
see  me.  He  seemed  eager  to  continue  the  discussion, 
for  he  had  scarcely  taken  his  seat  before  he  said  : 
"  My  difficulties  are  not  yet  all  removed.  In  fact,  we 
are  coming  to  the  greatest  of  all.  It  seems  to  me  tliat 
Moses  commits  a  gross  error  in  verses  14  and  15,* 
where  he  says,  '  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament 
of  heaven  to  divide,'  etc.     He  represents 

Objection     23.  '  ^ 

Says  sun  and  the  suu  and  moon  as  made  after  the  dry 

moon  were    ,,,,  iiii  ij-i 

made  after  land  had  appeared  and  Jiad  brouglit  lortli 
panth.  ^1^^  very  highest  orders  of  vegetation — 

fruit-trees — and  even  after  they  had  been  pronounced 
completed.  Or,  to  state  the  matter  geologically,  Mo- 
ses says  these  luminaries  were  formed  later  at  least 
than  the  cretaceous,  if  not  after  the  tertiary.  Now, 
every  body  knows  that  they  had  been  in  existence  long 
before  this,  and  had  been  shining  for  untold  ages  as 
brightly  as  now,  and  that  all  along  there  had  been 

*  The  reader  will  remember  that  it  is  the  common  version  of  which 
the  Professor  is  speaking. 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  Ill 

days  and  nights,  and  that  then,  as  now,  the  earth  had 
revolved  around  the  sun  in  a  little  more  than  three 
hundred  and  sixty-live  days.  I  cannot  believe  Moses 
inspired,  or  he  would  not  have  made  this  mistake." 

As  for  this  whole  matter  of  the  work  of  the  fourth 
period,  I  replied,  whatever  it  was,  it  involves  so  many 
questions  pertaining,  some  to  philology,  but  mostly  to 
physical  science,  that  an  exhaustive  consideration  is  at 
present  impossible.  T  think,  however,  tliat  the  special 
difficulty  to  which  you  refer  has  no  real  existence. 

The  common  version,  "  Let  there  be  lights,"  is  a 
creative  Hat,  and,  if  it  be  the  only  fair  rendering  of 
the  Hebrew,  involves  the  account  in  the  difficulties 
of  which  you  speak.  It  has  been  suggested  as  an  ex- 
planation that  the  earth  up  to  this  time  had  been 
wrapped  in  persistent  clouds  so  dense  as  to  hide  sun, 
moon,  and  stars,  and  that  the  command  was  directed 
merely  to  the  dispersion  of  these  clouds. 

This  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  looked  upon  by  many 
as  only  a  make-shift,  and  I  confess  it  seems  so  to  me. 
For  if  the  clouds  had  shut  out  all  light  there  would 
indeed  have  been  no  days  or  nights  or  seasons ;  but 
this  would  leave  the  previous  three  days  unaccounted 
for,  and  it  does  violence  to  the  laws  of  such  plant  life 
as  Moses  describes  ;  for  seed-yielding  herbs  and  fruit- 
trees  require  sunlight.  On  the  other  hand,  if  enough 
solar  rays  came  through  the  clouds  to  sustain  such  a 
vegetation,  then,  although  the  sun  might  be  invisible. 


112  GENESIS  L  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

as  now  in  a  cloudy  day,  tliere  would  have  been  days 
and  nights ;  and  the  existence  of  seasons  would  have 
been  indicated  by  the  varying  length  of  the  days. 

And  besides  this,  a  mere  breaking  away  of  clouds, 
permitting  the  face  of  the  sun  and  moon  to  be 
seen,  when  their  light  had  for  millions  of  years  been 
pouring  down  in  quantities  amply  sufficient  for  the 
needs  of  a  most  abundant  and  luxuriant  vegetable  and 
animal  life,  seems  but  a  meager  fulfillment  of  expec- 
tations excited  by  such  a  fiat  as,  Let  there  be  lights 
in  the  firmament  of  heaven. 

The  kind  of  science  which,  to  avoid  difiiculty,  says 
that  up  to  this  time  days  and  nights  had  no  definite 
limits  is  to  me  so  incomprehensible  that  I  cannot 
deem  it  worthy  of  serious  notice.  If  the  earth's  axial 
motion  was  uniform  (and  no  one  supposes  it  was  not), 
and  if  light  obeyed  the  same  laws  as  at  present,  the 
"limits"  of  the  days  must  have  been  as  definite  then 
as  now. 

Another  theory  finds  favor  with  some  who  protest 
against  applying  to  this  account  the  science  of  the 
nineteenth  century.*  Tliey  imagine  that  luminous 
matter  in  the  earlier  days  was  gathered  around  the 
earth,  until  the  fourth  period,  and  then  the  sun,  which 

*I  notice  that  those  who  protest  against  applying  the  science  of 
the  nineteenth  century  to  this  account  apply  it  tiiemselves,  just  as 
fur  as  they  think  they  can  do  so  with  safety.  IF  it  were  not  painful 
it  would  be  amusing  to  see  the  efforts  some  of  them  make  in  this 
rlirectiiin. 


0  UR  FO  URTH  E  VENING.  1 1 3 

previously  had  existed  as  an  opaque  body,  became 
hmiinons,  and  at  the  same  time  the  h"ght-giviiig-  mat- 
ter left  our  planet  and  went  to  the  sun,  or  in  some 
other  way  was  disposed  of. 

To  this  no  other  answer  need  be  given  than  that  the 
luminous  matter  owes  its  luminosity  to  its  intense 
heat.  Such  a  covering  about  the  earth  would  liave 
rendered  life  impossible. 

Lastly,  there  are  those  that  say  the  refractive  power 
of  the  atmosphere  was  in  some  way  so  increased  that 
the  solar  rays  were  bent  to  such  a  degree  that  the  side 
of  the  earth  away  from  the  sun  was  illuminated  almost 
as  much  as  the  side  toward  it.  This  requires  no 
other  answer  than  that  no  such  refraction  was  pos- 
sible without  a  change  in  the  laws  of  light. 

Apart  from  any  other  objection  to  such  an  explana- 
tion, it  is  useless  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  de- 
vised. It  does  not  remove  the  difficulties,  for  it  pro- 
vides only  for  a  perpetual  day,  while  the  account 
speaks  explicitly  of  day  and  night,  and  of  evening 
and  morning. 

With  these  and  all  similar  explanations,  I,  for  one, 
am  dissatisfied,  because  they  have  no  foundation  in 
facts,  and  because,  while  accepting  the  common  ver- 
sion, they  seem  to  force  its  meaning,  or,  at  least,  to 
belittle  its  natural  import  beyond  the  limits  of  a  fair 
exegesis. 

Pondering  long  upon  the  words  of  Moses  and  the 


114  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

facts  of  our  world's  history  as  I  had  learned  them 
from  astronomy  and  geology,  I  arrived,  at  last,  at 
another  explanation,  which,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  does 
violence  to  neither.  The  method  by  which  I  arrived 
at  it,  and  the  explanation  itself,  I  will,  as  briefly  and 
clearly  as  I  can,  now  lay  before  yon, 

I  first  songlit  to  know  jnst  what  it  was  that  Moses 
said.  This,  of  course,  was  a  question  for  the  gram- 
mar and  lexicon,  and  if  you  will  follow  me  as  I  again 
go  over  the  ground  you  will,  I  thiidf,  be  better  pre- 
pared to  compare  his  statements  with  the  facts  in  our 
world's  history  which  science  has  made  known. 

Turning  to  ray  Hebrew  Bible,  I  note  the  absence 
of  any  word  corresponding  to  "  there"  in  the  sentence 
which  is  I'endered,  "  Let  there  be  lights,"  etc.  The 
translators  placed  it  in  our  version  because,  with  the 
views  in  relation  to  the  creation  of  the  sun  and  moon 
which  they  held  in  common  with  all  the  world  in 
their  day,  they  thought  Moses  of  course  intended  to 
say  that  these  bodies  were  actually  made  at  that  late  date. 
"  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  "  can 
hardly  be  forced  to  mean  any  thing  less  than  their 
creation.  But  if  "  there  "  be  omitted,  the  creative 
sense  almost  disappears.  It  quite  vanishes  when  we 
use  in  the  English  the  future  tense — in  which  the  He- 
brew verb  really  is ;  then  it  reads,  "  And  God  said, 
The  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  shall  be  for  " 
certain  offices. 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  115 

This  is  an  important  change.  It  will  help  ns  to 
see  the  rightfulness  of  it  if  we  make  the  same  render- 
ing in  .each  of  the  other  fiats — that  is,  if  we  translate 
in  the  fntnre  tense — and  observe  that  it  makes  no 
change  in  their  meaning.  I  will  give  each  instance, 
keeping  the  exact  order  of  the  Hebrew  words,  except 
that  onr  idiom  requires  the  verb  to  be  placed  after  its 
subject,  while  the  other  generally  requires  the  opposite. 
We  say,  "In  the  beginning  God  ci'eated  the  heaven 
and  the  earth,"  while  the  Hebrew  says,  "  In  the  begin- 
ning created  God  the  heaven  and  the  earth."  The 
future  tense  being  used,  the  fiats  will  read  as  follows : 

''  And  God  said,  Light  shall  be — 

"  And  God  said,  A  firmament  shall  be — 

"  The  waters  under  the  heaven  shall  be  gathered 
unto  one  place,  and  the  dry  land  shall  appear — 

"  The  earth  shall  bring  forth  grass — 

"  The  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  shall  be 
for — 

"  They  shall  be  for  signs  and  seasons — 

"  They  shall  be  for  lights — 

"  The  water  shall  bring  forth — 

"The  earth  shall  bring  forth—" 

A  careful  examination  will  show  no  change  in  the 
sense  from  the  common  version,  except  in  the  fourth 
period.  You  will  notice  in  the  ninth  verse  it  reads, 
"  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be 
gathered  unto  one  place."     In  the  Hebrew  the  words 


116  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"  under  the  heaven  "  follow  "  waters  ;  "  they  qualify 
the  latter — that  is,  tell  what  waters  are  meant.  The 
same  order  is  found  in  the  14tli  verse;  it  is  literally, 
the  "lights  in  the  lirmanient  of  heaven."  Hence, 
if  we  keep  the  order  of  the  original,  we  should  say, 
"  the  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven,"  as  I  have 
given  in  the  proposed  version. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  fiat  was  a  command 
to  bodies  already  iti  existence  to  do  certain  things,  as 
in  tlie  third,  fifth,  and  sixth  periods. 

But  tliat  is  not  all.  There  is  in  this  verse  a  pecul- 
iar Hebrew  idiom,  the  recognition  of  which  sheds 
further  light  on  the  meaning  of  the  command.  Be- 
fore the  word  rendered  "  to  divide  "  there  is  placed 
the  preposition  Iahi)ied.  The  lexicons  say  that  the 
verb  "to  be,"  followed  by  lahmed  before  an  infinitive, 
is  often  merely  a  periphrase  for  the  simple  vei-b.  Ge- 
senius  says  it  forms  in  many  places  a  periphrase  for 
the  future  ;  for  example.  Gen.  xv,  12,  "  When  the  sun 
was  going  down,"  or,  rather,  "  When  the  sun  was 
about  to  go  down,"  or,  as  given  in  the  Catholicum 
Lexicon,  "  Soleil  allait  se  coucTierr  So  also  Josh, 
xi,  5.  Samuel  Lee  says  the  same.  So,  too,  in  Fuerst's 
Lexicon.  The  CatJiolicum  Lexicon  says  lahmed,  with 
the  verb  "  to  be  "  before  the  infinitive,  is  the  same  as 
in  English  "/  a7n  to  play  j''"'  or,  in  French,  '■'Aller 
faire  telle  chose — I  am  going  to  do  a  certain  thing." 

In  accordance  with  this   principle  the    fiat   reads 


U  UR  FU  URTII  E VENING.  1 1 7 

thus  :  "And  God  said,  Let  the  lights  in  the  firmament 
of  heaven  hencefortli  divide  between  *  the  day  and 

*  More  ilian  two  years  after  the  above  was  written  I  came  across 
Roseiimuller's  exposition  of  the  fourieenth  verse,  quoted  by  Dr. 
Clialmers  in  his  Natural  Theology,  vol.  i,  page  253.  I  give  it  with  a 
slight  change — not  in  the  sense,  l)ut  to  make  it  clearer. 

Speaking  of  this  verse  the  great  German  commentator  says :  "  If 
any  one  conversant  with  tlie  genius  of  the  Hebrew,  and  free  from 
previous  bias,  will  read  the  words  in  their  natural  connection,  lie 
will  immediately  perceive  that  they  import  a  direction  or  determina- 
tion of  the  heavenly  bodies  to  certain  uses.  The  words  ythie  meo- 
roih  are  not  to  be  rendered  Jiant  luminnria,  let  there  be  lights — that  is, 
let  lights  be  made;  but  rather,  let  lights  be — that  is,  serve  (inserviont) — 
in  the  expanse  of  heaven  for  distinguishing  between  day  and  night,  and  let 
them  be,  or  serve,  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  etc.  For  we  are  to  obstrve 
that  the  word  havah,  '  to  be,'  in  connection  with  the  prefix  lahmed, 
'for,'  is  generally  employed  to  express  the  direction  or  deterniiuatiou 
of  a  tiling  to  an  end,  and  not  its  production." 

I  interrupt  the  quotation  to  ask  the  reader  to  applj'  Rosenmliller's 
remark  to  cases  where,  as  in  the  text,  the  lahmed  is  placed  before  a 
verb.  In  such  a  case  the  thing  toward  which  the  fiat  is  directed,  or 
determined,  is  the  verb  itself ;  and  hence,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  it 
becomes  only  a  periphrase  for  the  simple  verb  in  the  future. 

Rosenmiiller  goes  on:  "But  the  difference  between  yehee  and  ilie 
plural  veyahee,  in  the  fourteenth  verse,  demands  a  corresponding  dif- 
ference in  their  translation ;  and,  therefore,  if  we  would  make  that 
difference  apparent,  we  must  literally  interpret  thus:  Fiat  luminaria 
in  firmamento  cosli  ad  dividendum  inter  diem  et  noctem,  ut  sint  in  signa, 
et  tempora,  etc.,  or,  in  our  language.  Let  it  be  that  the  lights  in  the 
firmament  of  heaven,  for  dividing  between  the  day  and  the  night,  be 
for  signs  and  for  seasons,  etc." 

It  will  be  seen  that  Rosenmiiller,  on  purely  grammatical  grounds, 
sustains  fully  the  great  point  that  a  creative  sense  ought  not  to  at- 
tach to  the  command  in  this  verse.  The  rendering  which  I  have 
given — Let  the  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  divide  between  the 
day  and  the  night,  and  let  them  be  for  signs,  etc. — seems  to  me  to  be 
even  closer  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  and,  moreover,  it  requires  no  strain- 
ing the  text  nor  forcing  the  conjunction  vav  (and)  into  "  that,"  as 
does  the  translation  adopted  bj'  Rosenmiiller. 


118  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

the  niglit."  I  insei't  tlie  word  "hencefortli "  to  ein- 
pliasize  the  future  meaning.  Thej  are  to  do  {aller 
faire)  tliis  thing. 

If  I  am  right  in  this  rendering,  whicli  seems  closer 
to  the  original  tluin  does  the  common  version,  your 
objection,  that  Moses  puts  the  creation  of  the  sun 
too  late,  vanislies,  for  this  is  not  a  creative  fiat  but 
merely  a  connnand  to  bodies  already  in  existence  to 
do  certain  things. 

"To  tljis,"  said  the  Professor,  "I  have  two  objec- 
tions. Dividing  between*  the  day  and  the  niglit  was 
nothing  new;  for  if,  as  you  say,  there  .had  been  a  sun 
for  ages,  and  there  had  been  days  and  nights,  the  sun 
divided  between  them  then  as  much  as  now  ;  hence, 
on  your  rendering,  there  was  nothing  done  in  response 
to  the  fiat.     This  seems  to  be  absurd. 

'■  Secondly,  you  place  the  article  '  the '  before  the 
word  '  lights.'  Y'ou  say,  '  Let  the  lights.'  The  article 
does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew.  What  right  have  you 
to  do  that  ?  " 

With  your  permission  I  will  reply  to  your  second 
objection  first,  deferring  the  other  until  we  have  dis- 
cussed some  preliminary  matters,  and  come  to  con- 
sider what  it  was  that  the  lights  were  commanded 
to  do. 

As  to  my  right  to  insert  the  article,  I  hardly 
expected  a  college  professor  to  ask  that  question.  I 
*  "  Between  "  is  the  marginal  reading,  and  is  literal. 


0  UR  FO  URTH  EVENING.  1 1 9 

will  say,  then,  that  I  have  the  same  right  to  insert  it, 
or  omit  it,  that  King  James's  translators  had.  Thej 
placed  it  before  firmament  in  this  very  clause,  and 
elsewhere  in  this  chapter  have  inserted  it  where  it 
was  not,  or  omitted  it  where  it  was,  more  than  fifty 
times.  Nor  is  this  any  thing  strange  or  unusual ;  it 
is  always  done  when  translating  from  one  language 
into  another.  AVe  are  therefore  at  liberty  to  insert 
or  omit  it  here,  in  harmony  with  the  idiom  of  the 
language,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  best  to  bring  out 
that  meaning  whicli  is  in  accordance  with  all  the 
facts. 

But  really  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  ai-ticlo 
proves  nothing  as  to  these  bodies  having  been  al- 
ready in  existence.  It  occui's  in  the  first  verse  before 
"heaven"  and  "earth,"  which  had  not  been  spoken 
of,  and  which  certainly  had  not  previously  existed, 
and  in  the  next  verse  it  is  omitted  before  "  Spirit," 
about  whose  previous  existence  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion. 

As  to  your  remark  that  if  the  "  lights  "  were  not 
made  at  this  time,  then  nothing  was  done  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  fiat,  I  think  that  what  was  done  was 
a  cliange  in  the  inclination  of  the  earth's  axis  from 
being  almost  or  quite  perpendicular  to  the  ecliptic 
to  its  present  obliquity;  not,  please  remember,  a 
change  in  the  position  of  the  axis  in  the  earth  itself, 
thereby  altering  latitudes,  but    one  which   did   not 


120  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

affect  the  geographical  position  of  the  poles.  Such  a 
change  would  be  of  immense  importance  not  only  as 
making  the  sun  and  moon  time  measurers,  since  it  in- 
troduced seasons  and  unequal  days  and  nights,  but  it 
greatly  increased  the  area  of  inhabitability.  For  if 
the  axis  were  now  perpendicular  to  the  ecliptic  the 
sun  would  remain  all  the  year  where  it  is  now  on  the 
twenty -first  day  of  March ;  consequently  no  vegetation 
could  come  to  maturity,  say,  from  the  middle  of  the 
United  States  northward,  nor  anywhere  in  Europe 
save  perhaps  a  little  on  the  Mediterranean,  nor  in  all 
Asia  from  the  northern  line  of  Hindustan.  Sub- 
stantially the  same  condition  would  exist  in  the 
southern  hemisphere.  Perpetual  snow  and  ice  would 
come  down  far  toward  this  line.  In  such  conditions 
snow  once  deposited  would  never  melt. 

The  area  from  which  the  snow  now  never  disap- 
pears is  but  a  few  millions  of  miles;  it  would  then 
be  nearly  thirty  millions.  It  would  be  moderate  to 
saj  that  one  half  of  the  present  inhabitable  area  of 
our  earth  would  have  remained  desolate  forever. 

Such  an  increase  of  obliquity  deserves  a  special 
fiat,  since,  like  the  introduction  of  plants  and  animals, 
it  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  force  known  to 
science.     It,  too,  must  be  referred  to  the  divine  will. 

The  Professor  replied,  "  It  is  easy  to  say  such  an 
increase  took  place,  but  to  be  of  any  value  the  as- 
sertion must  rest  on  facts." 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  121 

True,  I  replied,  but  we  must  look  for  the  evidence, 
not  in  disturbances  of  the  strata,  but  in  the  plant  and 
animal  life  of  those  early  times.  For  a  change  in  the 
obliquity  of  the  earth,  if  gradual,  occupying,  for  ex- 
ample, a  few  months,  would  not  produce  any  per- 
ceptible derangement  of  the  land  or  water.  But  in- 
stead of  days  and  nights  at  the  poles  each  twelve 
hours  long,  there  would  be  ever  afterward  six  months 
of  constant  sunshine  followed  by  six  months  of  con- 
stant darkness.  We  should  therefore  look  for  cor- 
responding changes  in  the  plants  and  animals,  and 
we  find  them. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  from  the  dawn  of  life 
to  the  middle  of  the  tertiary,  or  later,  organic  forms 
in  all  latitudes  were  not  only  similar,  but  in  most 
cases  actually  the  same;  hence  we  may  reasonably 
infer,  at  least  as  to  plants,  since  they  could  not 
migrate  with  changing  seasons,  that  the  life-condi- 
tions were  the  same  from  the  equator  to  the  poles. 

Besides  food,  only  temperature  and  light  affect 
plants.  "Which  is  the  more  important  it  is  difficult 
to  say. 

Temperature  might  have  been  modified  in  various 
ways,  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  could  have  been 
made  even  tolerably  uniform,  say,  in  latitude  80  de- 
grees, for  example,  in  Spitzbergen,  if  the  heat  of  the 
sun  was  wholly  cut  off  for  four  months  of  the  year, 
and  then  for  another  four  months  beat  down  without 


122  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

cessation,  as  must  have  been  tlie  case  in  those  days  if 
the  axis  of  the  earth  was  inclined  then  as  now. 

But  admitting  that  in  some  way  tlie  July  lieat  of 
Spitzbergen  was  so  modified,  and  the  January  cold 
so  reduced,  that  but  little  difference  remained* — al- 
though this  seems  impossible — there  remains  the  far 
more  difficult  problem  of  the  action  of  the  solar  raj'S 
on  plants.  In  no  way  could  this  be  affected  except 
by  a  change  in  the  axial  inclination.  Only  a  perpen- 
dicular axis  could  cause  identity  in  the  amount  and 
mode  of  distribution  of  the  actinic  force,  say  in  Spitz- 
bergen and  Florida.  Hence,  if  there  is  any  thing  in 
the  modern  doctrine  of  the  inliuence  of  environment, 
the  florsB  of  high  and  Icfw  latitudes,  if  the  axis  was 
inclined  23^  degrees,  should  have  been  different. 
The  converse  is  true.  The  identity  of  the  florae 
proves  identity  of  life-affecting  forces  —  hence  of 
actinic  rays  ;  hence  a  perpendicular  axis.f 

The  sameness  in  plants  and  animals  of  all  latitudes 
extends  past  the  middle  of  the  tertiaiy.  After  the 
tertiary  a  remarkable  change  occurred  in  the  climate 
of  the  world  ;  what  is  called  the  glacial  epoch  set  in, 

*  The  equalizing  iuflucnce  of  the  ocean  is  very  great,  but,  whatever 
it  was,  it  could  not  prevent  differences  between  summer  and  winter 
temperature  in  Spitzbergen,  which,  it  would  seem,  must  have  been 
great  enough  to  destroy  the  magnolias  and  other  tender  vegetation 
which  we  know  abounded  there  in  the  ages  of  geology. 

•)•  Dana,  Manual  of  Geology,  says  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  zones  of 
climate  in  any  of  Ihe  earlier  geological  periods.  The  evidence  of  the 
absence  of  such  zones  is  overwhelming. 


0  UR  FO  URTH  E  VENING.  1 23 

and  all  high  latitude  regions  were  covered  with  ice 
and  snow.  Ever  since  tliat  time  of  cold  passed  away 
there  is  ample  evidence  of  changing  seasons,  and 
hence  of  axial  obliquity. 

To  sum  up :  the  sanieness  of  plant-species  before 
the  middle  of  the  tertiary  indicates  a  sameness  in  the 
life-conditions  incompatible  with  months  of  contin- 
uous darkness  followed  by  months  of  continuous 
light;  after  the  latter  part  of  the  tertiary  a  very  re- 
markable change  occurred ;  and  thenceforward  life- 
conditions  were  such  as  now  exist.  From  the  study 
of  fossil  botany  we  learn  that  the  glacial  epoch  came 
after  the  introduction  of  modern  plants.  We  can 
reconcile  the  record  before  and  after  that  event  only 
on  the  theory  that  what  occurred  was  a  great  change 
in  the  inclination  of  the  earth's  axis. 

"  To  such  an  inci'case,"  said  the  Professor,  "  two  ob- 
jections now  occur  to  me.  All  the  forces  in  the  solar 
system  affecting  the  position  of  the  axis  are  compen- 
sative, so  that  any  change  in  the  obliquity  would,  at 
most,  be  but  small  (li  degrees  or  so,  as  shown  by  La- 
place and  by  Mr.  Stockwell)  and  of  comparatively 
brief  duration.  And  if  in  some  way  you  can  get  by 
that.  Dr.  Croll  says  that  if  the  axis  had  been  perpen- 
dicular to  the  ecliptic,  the  polar  climate  would  have 
been  in  consequence  less  genial  than  at  present.  Cer- 
tainly it  can  be  mathematically  shown  that  in  such  a 
case  the  arctic  regions  would  receive  a  less  number  of 


124  GEXESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

solar  rays  than  tliey  do  now  ;*  whereas,  in  fact,  they 
were  very  much  warmer.  These  two  facts  seem  to 
me  to  make  pretty  thorough  work  of  your  theory." 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  no  force  known  to  science 
could  permanently  change  the  obliquity  of  the  earth's 
axis.  But  this  is  irrelevant,  for  somehow  and  at  some 
time  the  axis,  which,  on  any  purely  mechanical  theory 
of  formation  from  nebulous  matter,  ought  to  be  per- 
pendicular to  the  ecliptic,  is  inclined  23|-  degrees.f 
Tiiat  it  once  really  was  nearly  perpendicular  seems 
indicated,  not  merely  by  the  laws  of  mechanics,  l)ut 
by  the  fact  that  the  moon's  axis  is  nearly  in  that 
position  now,  its  obliquity  being  only  1  degree  30 
minutes  and  10  seconds,  and  originally  their  axes,  on 
such  a  theory,  must  have  been  parallel. 

The  burden  of  proof  lies  on  those  who,  claiming  a 
merely  mechanical  system  evolved  from  nebulous 
matter  by  physical  law,  deny  a  change  of  obliquity. 
However  great  the  difficulty  of  showing  a  sufficient 
cause  for  the  change,  it  does  not  concern  him  who 
attempts  to  explain  this  account.     I  have  now  to  do 

*Tlierc  can,  I  think,  be  no  doubt  that  Dr.  CroU  is  right  in  this. 
See  Meech's  paper  "On  the  Relative  Intensity  of  Heat  and  Liglit  of 
ihe  Sun  at  Different  Latitudes,"  in  the  Smitlisonian  Contribulluns  to 
Knowledge. 

f  There  are  many  facts  which  no  force  known  to  science  can  ex- 
plain. There  is  the  existence  of  matter,  of  force,  of  plants,  of  ani- 
mals, of  mind.  All  these,  like  the  increase  of  the  earth's  obliquity, 
can  be  explained  only  by  considering  them  as  the  result  of  a  divine 
volition. 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  125 

oiilj  with  the  fact,  patent  to  all,  that  at  some  time 
the  earth's  axis  became  inclined  23^  degrees,  and,  if 
possible,  to  discover  when  it  occurred — a  question  of 
dates  only.  You  will,  of  course,  admit  that  up  to  that 
time,  whenever  it  was,  there  was  no  alternation  of 
seasons,  and  that  the  days  in  all  latitudes  were  of  equal 
length,  being  every-where  twelve  hours  long.*  Con- 
sequently, if  in  some  way  sufficient  warmth  was  sup- 
plied in  high  latitudes  we  should  justly  expect  to  find 
similar,  and  even  identical,  species  of  plants  flourishing 
every-where.  But  after  that  great  event  there  would 
be,  in  Spitzbergen  and  on  that  parallel  from  that  time 
onward,  winter  nights  and  summer  days  four  months 
long,  while  in  Florida  days  and  nights  would  scarcely 
change  at  all.  In  high  latitudes  all  plants  adapted  to  the 
previous  conditions  would  die  out,  and  in  their  places 
would  arise  new  species  fitted  for  the  different  state 
of  things  ;  f  while  iu  low  latitudes  the  vegetation  would 
be  unaffected,  and  the  same  plants  might  be  expected 
to  continue  to  the  present  day. 

It  is  wonderf\d  how  this  agrees  with  the  world's 
actual  history.     In  the  ages  before  a  certain  time — 

*If  the  earth's  axis  was  then  inchned  the  same  as  the  moon's 
is  now,  there  was  a  very  small  variiitioii  in  the  length  of  the  days, 
but  too  small  lo  admit  of  any  climatic  or  actinic  value  whatever. 

I  Present  arctic  plants  are  wholly  different  from  tlmse  of,  for  ex- 
ample, the  Miocene.  The  change  of  chmate  in  those  regions  was  fol- 
lowed by  "  a  new  set  of  plants  whose  seeds  had  never  been  there 
or  iu  tliat  neighborhood,"  nor,  I  may  add,  anywhere  else. 


126  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE, 

tlic  glacial  epoch — the  same  plants  grew  in  Spitzbei'gen 
and  in  Florida.  To-day  not  one  of  those  species  hves 
within  many  hundred  miles  of  Spitzbergen  or  other 
arctic  regions,  where  they  once  flourished,  as  Lyell  says, 
"  with  the  greatest  luxuriance ; "  while  their  descend- 
ants are  yet  found  in  Florida  and  similar  localities, 

"  However  true,"  said  the  Professor,  "  this  may  idl  be 
— and  I  must  confess  it  is  based  on  well-established  facts 
— yet  unless  you  can  dispose  of  my  other  objection  your 
argument  is  tlirown  away.  A  perpendicular  axis  which 
nuide  the  polar  climate  less  genial  than  at  present 
would  seem  to  be  disproved  by  the  very  fact  which 
you  deem  so  important,  namely,  that  warm-climate 
plants  did  actually  grow  far  beyond  the  arctic  circle." 

It  is  true  that  a  smaller  number  of  solar  rays  than  at 
present  would  be  received  during  the  year  at  the  poles 
if  the  axis  were  perpendicular.  But  the  conclusion 
which  Dr.  Croll  draws  from  this  fact — that  the  climate 
would  be  less  genial — will  hold  good  only  on  condition 
that  temperature  is  proportional  to  the  number  of  rays 
received.   This  is  by  no  means  the  case.   Proof  abounds. 

High  lands  are  cooler  than  low  lands.  Yet,  on 
equal  surfaces,  the  former  receive  as  many  or  more 
sohir  rays  than  the  latter.  So,  too,  men  in  a  balloon 
have  almost  perished  with  cold  while  people  on  the 
ground  beneath  them  have  been  oppressed  with  heat. 
Temperature  depends  far  more  upon  the  amount  of 
heat  retained  than  upon  the  amount  I'eceivod ;  and, 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  127 

tlierefure,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  in  tliose  earlier 
days  the  heat  in  high  latitudes  was  in  some  way  re- 
tained, the  mild  temperature  would  be  accounted  for, 
and  your  objection  would  fall  to  the  ground.  You 
have  doubtless  read  Professor  Tj'ndaH's  beautiful 
experiments  on  the  absorbing  power  of  gases  and 
vapors  in  his  Heat  Considered  as  a  Mode  of  Moiion. 
He  has  shown  that  carbonic  acid  and  aqueous  vapor, 
as  well  as  many  other  gases  and  vapors,  have  the 
power  of  permitting  solar  heat  to  pass  to  the  earth's 
surface  while  retailing  the  heat  from  the  latter,  just 
as  the  glass  in  a  green-house  permits  the  solar  rays  to 
entei',  but  does  not  allow  those  radiated  from  the  in- 
terior to  esca])e.  In  this  law  is  found,  I  think,  the 
solution  of  the  mysterj^  of  the  warm  arctic  temper- 
ature. The  atmosphere  in  those  days  was  rich  in 
carbonic  acid  and  aqueous  vapor ;  and  hence,  like  a 
warm  blanket  covering  the  earth,  retained  the  heat 
which  the  surface  received.* 

*  Some  geologists  deny  the  existence  of  any  such  greater  amount 
of  carbonic  acid  than  is  now  found  in  the  atmosphere,  because  it 
would,  as  they  think,  have  rendered  life  impossible,  and  we  know 
that  life  was  abundant.  Without  going  at  any  length  into  tlie  dis- 
cussion I  will  only  quote  the  words  of  Professor  Ira  Remscn,  of  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  in  Popular  Science  Monthly,  page  218,  1879: 
"It  has  long  since  been  proved,  beyond  possibility  of  doubt,  that  tlie 
amount  of  this  gas,  when  mixed  with  pure  air,  may  be  increased  to 
one  twentieth  of  the  volume  of  the  air" — more  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  times  its  present  proportion — "  witliout  producing  any  serious 
effect  upon  those  who  breathe  the  air  thus  contaminated." 

This  would  be  ample  to  give  the  "warm  blanket"  required. 
9 


128  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

For  these  and  for  other  reasons  which  I  liave  set 
forth  in  fnll  elsewhere  *  it  appears  to  me  that  a  per- 
pendicular axis  with  an  atmosphere  rich  in  carbonic 
acid  and  aqueous  vapor  would  account  for  the  uni- 
formity in  life-conditions  which  characterized  those 
early  times. 

"  It  would  seem  so ;  but  there  is  a  fact  in  geology 
which  appears  to  j)rove  that  long  before  the  glacial 
epoch  there  were  summers  and  winters,  and  hence 
the  earth's  axis  must  have  inclined  as  at  present. 
Exogenous  trees  flourished  and  formed  growth-rings, 
I  do  not  know  how  far  back,  but  many  thousand 
years  before  the  glacial  time.  Now,  every  body  sup- 
poses that  those  rings  mark  the  growth  in  summer 
and  the  rest  in  winter.     If  so,  then  your  case  fails." 

That  is  the  belief  of  botanists;  but  it  is  only  a 
belief,  and  is  not  founded  on  facts.  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  exaiTiine  into  the  connection  between  these 
growth-rings  and  the  seasons,  and  have  embodied  my 
conclusions,  with  the  facts  on  which  they  rest,  in  an 
article  entitled,  "  Is  the  Existence  of  Growth- Rings  in 
the  Early  Exogenous  Plants  Proof  of  Alternating 
Seasons?"  {American  Journal  of  Science,  1878,  Art. 
xlv.)  I  there  showed  that  many  exogens  between  the 
tropics,  where  there  is  no  cold  season,  form  such  rings. 

*  "The  Three  Climates  of  Geology,"  Penn  Monthly  for  June,  July, 
and  August,  1880;  also,  "Geological  Climates,"  in  Popular  Science 
Monthly  for  July,  1886. 


OUR  FOURTH  EVENING.  129 

"  But  tliey  have  wet  and  dry  seasons  which  pro- 
duce the  same  effect  as  a  change  from  hot  to  cold. 
And  these  wet  and  dry  seasons  depend  on  the  incKna- 
tion  of  the  earth's  axis." 

At  first  I  thought  as  you  do,  hut  I  soon  found 
other  facts.  The  mangrove,  a  tropical  tree  growing 
in  the  edge  of  the  sea,  and  constantly  washed  by  its 
waves,  forms  these  rings  as  regularly  and  distinctly  as 
does  tlie  oak  or  pine.  In  this  case  there  is  no  possi- 
ble influence  arising  from  the  inclination  of  the  earth's 
axis.  I  observed,  also,  that  orange  and  lemon  trees 
form  annual  rings,  although,  being  in  this  climate  kept 
in  green-houses,  they  do  not  feel  the  change  of  seasons ; 
and  that  cycads  form  rings  only  once  in  two  or  three 
years,  wliile  at  least  one  plant  (the  C/ienopodium 
album)  forms  many  rings — in  one  case  which  I  have 
seen,  fourteen — in  a  single  summer.  And  lastly,  to 
show  how  pnrely  accidental  is  the  connection  between 
seasons  and  rings,  certain  exogens  growing  even  in 
this  latitude  form  none. 

These  facts  prove  that  growth-rings  would  have 
been  formed  whether  there  were  seasons  or  not,  being 
due  to  certain  cycles  of  growth  and  rest,  implanted  in 
the  nature  of  plants.* 

*  ThosG  who  wish  to  see  what  geologists  say  about  ancient  climates 
and  the  distribution  of  plants  and  animals  may  read  the  following 
from  Dana's  Manual  of  Geology^  revised  ediiion,  page  181 :  "There  is 
wanting  all  evidence  of  a  diversity  of  zones  of  climate  over  the  earth's 
surface"  in  the  lower  Silurian.     Page  209:   "No  proof"  of  the  same 


130  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

The  more  I  reflect  upon  this  matter  the  clearer 
grows  my  conviction  that  an  increase  in  the  obliquity 
of  the  axis  did  occur  at  or  near  the  end  of  the  ter- 
tiary. But  if  I  am  mistaken,  then  what  Moses  says 
in  verses  14  and  15  merely  waits  for  its  explanation 
until  our  knowledge  becomes  more  nearly  perfect,  and 
we  must  content  ourselves  with  tlie  suggestive  fact 
that  between  the  production  of  present  plants  and 
that  of  present  water  vertebrates  and  birds  there  did 
really  occur  a  most  remarkable  climatic  change. 
Without  further  discussion  I  shall  for  the  present 
assume  that  the  axis  of  the  earth  did  increase  its  ob- 
licpiity  from  some  small  angle — probably  fi  degrees — 
to  23^  degrees,  and  on  tiiis,  as  a  real,  or  if  you  please 
assumed,  fact,  continue  my  exposition  of  these  verses. 
But  it  will  be  better  to  wait  until  another  evening,  as 
we  shall  not  be  able  to  finish  the  consideration  of  this 
period  in  one  and  perhaps  not  in  two  evenings. 

After  a  little  talk  we  fixed  upon  tlie  next  AVednes- 

day  evening  for  our  purpose,  and  so  we  adjourned. 

"  ill  the  Trenton  period  as  far  as  yet  studied."  "  The  mild  tempera- 
ture of  the  arctic  region  is  evident."  Page  266 :  "  Tlie  identity  of 
species  between  arctic  lands  and  Europe  and  America  favors  an 
approximate  identity  of  character;  and  there  is  no  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  any  cold  arctic  or  an}'-  wide  diversity  of  zone "  in  the 
early  Devonian.  I  might  multiply  such  quotations  indefinitely. 
Those  who  would  look  further  may  turn  to  pages  352,  587,  321,  403, 
497,  514,  515,  etc.  As  to  continental  elevation  and  completion,  see 
pages  524,  525,  526,  etc.  In  fact,  all  the  book,  in  reference  to  climate, 
plant-life,  and  animals,  bears  evidence  to  the  truth  of  what  I  have 
been  saving. 


0  UR  FIFTH  E  VENING.  1 3 1 


OUR   FIFTH   EVENING. 


THE    FOURTH    PERIOD    CONTINUED. 

After  the  usual  greetings,  the  Professor  asked  me 
to  go  on  with  my  exposition.  He  held  a  copy  of  the 
Bible  in  his  hand,  and  at  my  request  read  aloud  the 
verses  relating  to  the  work  of  the  fourth  period. 

The  "lights,"  I  began,  were  commanded  to  divide 
between  the  day  and  the  night ;  they  were  to  be  for 
signs  and  for  seasons  and  for  days  and  years,  and  were 
to  give  light  upon  the  earth — three  important  offices. 

As  to  the  first,  how  or  what  were  they  to  divide 
between  the  day  and  the  night  ?  Certainly  they  were 
not  to  divide  in  the  sense  of  separating  the  day  from 
the  night.  That,  according  to  the  fourth  verse,  was 
done  in  the  first  period.  And,  besides,  such  a  mean- 
ing is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  inapplicable  to  lumi- 
nous bodies.  Nor  do  these  lights  serve  to  distinguish 
between  the  day  and  the  night,  as,  if  otherwise,  we 
might  mistake  the  one  for  the  other.  Either  of  these 
meanings  would  be  absurd,  and  hence  I  conclude 
that  neither  was  intended. 

It  is  common  to  use  the  word  "  divide "  in  the 
sense  of  allotting  or  meting  out,  as  wlien  we  say  a 
father  divides  his  property  among  his  sons.    If  divide 


132  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

lie  taken  in  this  sense,  then  the  meaning  is :  Let  tlie 
lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  divide  the  time  of 
a  diurnal  revolution  between  the  day  and  the  night ; 
that  is,  let  them  allot  to  each  its  length. 

To  divide  is  also  used  in  the  sense  of  making  a 
difference.  For  example,  in  Lev.  xi,  46,  47,  we  read, 
"  This  is  the  law  of  the  beasts, ...  to  make  a  difference 
between  clean  and  unclean."  The  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven  were  henceforth  to  "  make  a  differ- 
ence "  between  the  day  and  the  night.  Nothing  is 
intimated  as  to  what  the  difference  was  to  be.  Evi- 
dently it  does  not  refer  to  the  day  being  light  and 
the  night  dark,  for,  in  the  fifth  verse,  the  writer  had 
already  said  that  the  light  was  called  day  and  the 
darkness  was  called  night.  The  only  other  difference 
is  that  which  now  exists,  namcl)',  a  difference  in 
length.  In  that  sense  his  words  become  fairly  lumi- 
nous in  view  of  the  fact  that  till  after  the  modern 
flora  had  made  its  appearance — that  is,  after  the  third 
Mosaic  period — the  days  and  nights  had  been  equal 
all  through  the  year,  but  that  ever  since  the  increase 
in  the  obliquity  of  the  earth's  axis  there  has  been  un- 
ceasing variation  in  their  length  as  the  sun  journeys 
north  and  south.  As  to  the  moon,  there  is  even  more 
variation  in  the  time  it  lights  the  night. 

"If,"  said  the  Professor,  "such  an  increase  of  in- 
clination did  really  occur,  its  effects  would  be  such  as 
von  have  said,  for  while  it  would  not  affect  in  the 


OUR  tlFTll  EVENING.  133 

least  tlie  length  of  a  diurnal  revolution  it  would  the 
length  of  the  dajs  and  nights.  But  how  were  the 
'  lights  '  to  be  for  signs  ? " 

It  may  be  that  by  "signs"  Moses  had  reference  to 
the  means  of  determining  the  times  of  the  Jewish 
festivals,  which,  as  you  know,  were  governed  by  the 
full  moon  in  connection  with  the  vernal  equinox ;  or 
perhaps,  in  a  broader  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  a  better 
sense,  the  lights  were  to  be  for  signs  by  which  to 
measure  time  in  general.  If  the  earth's  axis  had  re- 
mained perpendicular  tliere  would  have  been  notliing 
to  distingnisli  one  full  moon  from  another— no  iixed 
point  to  count  from — since  there  would  have  been 
neither  spring  nor  other  season.  And,  even  if  it  was 
inclined  a  little — say  1-^  degrees — the  change  of  sea- 
sons would  have  been  so  small  as  to  have  been  imper- 
ceptible, and  hence  of  no  use  as  a  time  measure.  For 
the  same  reason  the  year  would  never  have  become 
a  common  measure  of  time ;  for  without  alternatins: 
seasons  there  would  have  been  nothing  to  suggest  it, 
except  to  astronomers.  There  was,  therefore,  gi-eat 
propriety  in  speaking  of  the  lights  being  for  signs 
and  for  seasons  and  for  days  and  years,  as,  in  an  im- 
portant sense,  a  new  office  for  these  bodies. 

"  But,"  said  the  Professor,  "  are  you  not  giving 
that  word  '  season  '  a  sense  which  does  not 

Objection  24. 

properly  belong  to  it  ?     Do  we  not  read 
elsewhere  that  the  moon  is  appointed  for  seasons? 


184  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

and,  if  so,  how  can  tlie  word  mean  what  we  now  call 
seasons? " 

The  Hebrew  word  is  very  like  its  English  synonym. 
It  has  reference  to  seasons  of  all  kinds — seasons  for 
sowing,  seasons  for  reaping,  seasons  for  religious 
ceremonies,  etc.  All  these,  so  f;ir  as  they  are  a  meas- 
ure of  time,  are  established  by  the  obliquity  of  the 
earth's  axis,  or,  in  other  woi'ds,  they  count  from  the 
vernal  equinox,  without  which  they  either  would  not 
exist  at  all  or  else  would  have  no  fixed  point  from 
which  to  be  computed.  Seasons,  therefore,  even 
when  the  psalmist  says  the  "  moon  was  appointed  for 
seasons"  (Psa.  cxiv,  19),  were  directly  or  indirectly 
dependent  upon  the  inclination  of  the  earth's  axis. 

But  now  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  what  seems  an 
inexplicable  omission  on  any  theory  other  than  that 
which  attributes  to  the  author  of  this  account  a 
knowledge  of  the  true  relation  of  the  sun  and  moon 
to  the  earth.  He  speaks  of  seasons,  days,  and  years, 
but  of  months — next  to  days  by  far  the  most  natural 
division  of  time — he  says  nothing  whatever;  nor  of 
M-eeks,  the  institution  of  which  was  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  to  Moses  above  all  others,  since  he  was  the  law- 
giver of  his  nation,  a  matter  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance.*    They  had  a  word  clearly  and  unmistakably 

*  It  is  interesling  as  showin":  tlie  lack  of  real  agreement  between 
the  Bible  and  the  "Chaldean  Genesis"  to  observe  tliat  in  the  latter 
nionths  are  the  measurement  of  lime  by  far  the  most  prominently 
mentioned. 


OUR  FIFTH  EVENING.  185 

meaning  the  time  of  u  lunar  revolution — a  lunar 
month — yet  Moses  omits  it.  Think  you  it  was  by 
accident  that  he  named  each  division  of  time  in  any 
way  related  to  the  position  of  the  earth's  axis,  or  af- 
fected directly  or  indirectly  by  an  increase  of  its  in- 
clination, and  omitted  the  others?  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  axis  did  really  at  this  time  become  more 
oblique,  and  if  the  autlior  of  this  narrative  knew  it, 
he  could  not  do  otherwise,  since  the  omission  of 
months  and  weeks  was  :is  necessary  to  the  accuracy 
of  his  account  as  the  mention  of  seasons.* 

"  This,"  said  the  Professor,  "  is  remarkable,  and,  so 
far  as  I  can  see,  unaccountable  on  any  ordinary  theory, 
although  reasonable  enough  if  the  author  of  this 
chapter  had  actual  knowledge  of  the  earth's  axis  hav- 
ing then  become  oblique. 

*  Of  course,  an  oblique  ;ixis  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  exist- 
ence of  seasons,  and  for  those  "signs"  which  measure  from  the  ver- 
nal equinox,  and  it  very  seriously  affects  days,  since  it  causes  them 
to  be  long  in  summer  and  short  in  winter.  But  it  neither  caused  the 
year  to  exist  nor  does  it  affect  its  length.  Yet  the  obliquity  is  im- 
portant. Otherwise  the  year  would  have  come  and  gone  as  unnoticed 
as  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes.  In  harmony  with  tliis  difference 
in  the  relation  of  that  great  event  to  these  measures  of  time  it  hap- 
pened (?)  that,  in  the  fiat,  the  preposition  "  for,"  which,  in  accordance 
with  the  Hebrew  idiom,  should  be  repeated  before  each  noun,  is 
omitted  before  years.  "And  let  them  be  for  signs  and  for  seasons, 
and  for  days  and  years." 

Perhaps  even  to  mention  this  is  attaching  too  much  importance  to 
what  most  will  think  an  accidental  omission.  But  this  whole  chapter 
is  so  curious,  so  big  with  truth,  that  it  is  not  safe  to  omit  a  close  scru- 
tiny of  any  thing  in  it. 


136  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"  But  bow  about  tbe  tbird  office  wliicb  tbese  lights 
were  to  perform  ?  It  seems  to  me  somewhat  unrea- 
sonable if  this  is  a  series  of  absolutely  phenomenal 
descriptions,  that  the  '  lights  in  the  firmament  of 
heaven,'  which  you  as  well  as  all  scientists  believe 
had  been  shining  on  our  globe  for  countless  ages, 
should,  at  so  late  a  period  as  the  close  of  the  tertiary, 
be  appointed  to  give  ligbt  upon  the  earth." 

I  do  not  venture  to  hope  that  I  can  solve  every 
problem.  Ability  fully  to  comprehend  this  narrative 
implies  a  complete  knowledge  of  our  world's  early 
history.  Of  all  its  statements  those  in  relation  to  the 
fourth  period  are  the  most  difficult,  because  so  little 
is  yet  known  of  what  happened  in  that  great  stretch 
of  time  to  M-hich  it  refers. 

The  fiat  was  a  command  to  these  bodies  to  do  cer- 
tain new  things,  or,  if  you  please,  to  discharge  certain 
new  offices.  It  may  also  have  been  a  command  to 
continue  certain  old  offices.  As,  if  one  were  giving  a 
new  charter  to  an  old  city,  he  would  naturally  men- 
tion the  privileges  which  were  to  continue  as  well  as 
the  new  ones.  I  would  say,  therefore,  that  I  see  in 
this  command  an  enumeration  of  old  duties  in  con- 
nection with  the  new  ones,  in  order  that  no  one 
might  claim  for  these  bodies  exemption  in  any  partic- 
ular from  God's  control. 

This  seems  to  me  the  most  probable  explanation  of 
what  Moses  says.     Whether  the  belief  that  a  dense 


OUR  FIFTH  EVEMNG.  137 

cloud-envelope  formed  as  the  cold  of  the  glacial 
period  came  on,  and  the  fiat  was  directed  to  its  re- 
moval, as  some  have  thought,  has  any  foundation  in 
fact,  is  very  doubtful.  For  myself  I  prefer  the  ex- 
planation which  I  have  given. 

"  This  whole  matter,"  said  the  Professor,  "  is  very 
curious.  It  is  strange  that  Moses,  with  his  Hebrew 
notions  of  the  importance  of  Sabbaths  and  months, 
says  nothing  of  either  w-hen  speaking  of  the  meas- 
ures of  time.  And  it  certainly  is  very  remarkable 
that  he  places  the  statement  that  the  lights  were  to 
be  for  seasons  just  where  he  does — that  is,  after  fruit- 
trees,  and  before  living  species  of  animals,  for  the 
glacial  period  comes  in  that  interval,  and  it  was  the 
pivotal  period  between  the  uniform  climate  of  the 
earlier  world  and  the  wonderfully  varied  climate  of 
the  present  day.  The  conclusions  are  too  startling. 
They  bewilder  me.  I  must  take  time  to  consider 
them.  But  1  find  great  difiiculty  in  the  next  two 
verses.  To  me  they  seem  to  contradict  your  explana- 
tion of  the  fourteenth  verse.  The  writer  says,  'And 
God  made  the  *  two  great  lights  ;  the  greater  light  to 
rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night :  he 
made  the  stars  also  ; '  and  so  on  through  the  next  verse. 
I  have  always  been  told  that  this  verse  has  reference 
to  the  actual  creation  of  those  bodies  ;  and  since  it  is 

*  The  article  is  omitted  in  our  version,  but  it  is  found  in  tlie 
Hebrew. 


188  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

placed  in  the  fourth  period  it  is  fair  to  suppose  that 
Moses  himself  believed  that  they  were  formed  after 
the  things  mentioned  in  the  earlier  periods,  as,  for 
example,  after  the  grass  and  the  herbs  yielding  seed, 
and  after  the  fruit-trees.  But  the  fossils  tell  us  that 
the  sun  had  l)cen  shining  for  untold  ages  before  there 
were  any  fruit-trees.     So  far  as  I  can  see 

Objection  24"-        ... 

About  the  or-  tliis  is  a  Contradiction  of  the  record  of  the 
rocks ;  or,  if  in  some  way  you  thi'ow  this 
verse  back  to  an  earlier  date,  does  not  that  destroy  the 
chronological  order  which  you  claim  for  this  story  ? 
God  undoubtedly  made  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  at 
some  time,  but  not  at  so  late  a  period  as  Moses  says 
lie  did."  , 

We  set  out,  I  replied,  when  we  began  this  discus- 
.  sion,  with  the  theory  that  Moses  means  just  exactly 
what  he  says.  Our  adherence  to  this  has  caused  many 
seemingly  formidable  difficulties  to  disappear.  We 
must  still  hold  to  it.  Hence  when,  after  the  command 
to  the  lights  to  divide  between  the  day  and  the  night, 
and  to  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
3'ears,  Moses  adds,  "  and  it  "was  so  " — that  is,  the  fiat 
was  obeyed — we  are  stopped  from  saying  that  he 
thought,  or  that  he  wished  his  hearers  to  think,  that 
the  bodies  whose  obedience  was  recorded  in  that 
phrase  were  made  afterward — that  is,  made  after 
they  had  done  as  they  had  been  commanded.  More- 
over, he  had  previously  told  of  days  and  nights  and 


0  UR  FIFTH  E  VENING.  1 39 

mornings  and  evenings.  How  could  lie  possiblj  have 
dreamed  of  saying  that  the  sun  was  made  after  all 
that?  To  believe  this  requires  not  only  ignorance  of 
our  world's  histoiy,  and  a  ready  power  of  miscon- 
ception, but  also  the  assumption  that  the  author  of  the 
narrative  used  words  with  such  looseness  as  to  mean 
little  or  nothing. 

"  Those  verses  ai'e  in  the  account ;  they  mean  some- 
thing; what  is  it?  why  are  they  there?" 

I  see  in  them  only  a  parenthetical  statement  to 
guard  against  the  tendency  of  the  Hebrews  to  worship 
the  heaveidy  bodies,  which  was  exceedingly  strong. 
After  recording  the  command  and  its  fulfillment — 
"  and  it  was  so  " — an  act  of  mastership  merely — Moses 
claims  infinitely  higher  rank  for  his  God,  and  forever 
denies  the  self-existence  of  these  bodies  by  adding  the 
all-important  statement  that  he  made  them,  and  set 
them  in  the  firmament  to  give  light  upon  the  earth 
and  to  rule  over  the  day  and  night,  and  to  divide  be- 
tween the  light  and  darkness.  That  is,  God  made 
those  bodies,  and  made  them  on  purpose  to  perform 
the  very  ofiices  which  the  Hebrews  daily  saw  them 
filling.  Supremacy  could  go  no  further ;  and  the 
writer  adds,  in  order  that  no  one  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  should  be  deemed  independent  of  God,  "  he 
made  the  stars  also."  Hence,  in  reference  to  all  these 
luminaries,  the  sun  in  its  might,  the  moon  in  its  silver 
radiance,  and  the  stars  in  their  mysterious  beauty — 


140       ,         GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

the  gods  of  the  surrounding  nations — Elohini  is  not 
set  forth  as  first  among  equals,  but  infinitely  higher. 

"  But,"  said  the  Professor,  "  are  you  not  attaching 
too  much  importance  to  the  M'ords  'and 
it  was  so  ? '  AVe  read,  '  Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  grass,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees,'  followed  by 
those  same  words,  '  and  it  was  so  ; '  and  yet  in  the  very 
next  verse  we  read,  '  And  the  earth  brought  foi'th 
grass,  and  herbs,  and  fruit-ti'ees.'  After  those  words, 
which  indicate  the  earth's  obedience  to  the  command, 
we  read  that  it  did  the  very  thing  which,  if  your 
exegesis  is  correct,  it  had  already  done.  Is  this  not 
fatal  to  the  conclusion  which  you  draw  ?  " 

No,  I  said,  the  cases  are  not  parallel.  It  is  a 
fact  that  the  earth  brought  forth  grasses,  herbs,  and 
fruit-trees  in  obedience  to  the  command,  and  from 
that  time  onward  it  went  on  bringing  them  forth. 
The  command  caused  them  to  come  into  existence, 
and  they  continue  to  the  present  day  to  be  brought 
forth.  As  to  the  sun  and  moon  the  case  is  very  dif- 
ferent. Had  Moses,  after  announcing  their  obedience 
to  the  command,  said  that  they  continue  to  be  for 
signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  for  years,  no 
one  could  have  objected.  Instead  of  that  he  records 
the  command,  and  that  it  was  so  done,  and  then  adds 
the  great  fact  that  God  made  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,  and  placed  them  on  high. 

"I  do  not  know  that  I  can  justly  object  to  this; 


OUR  FIFTH  EVENING.  141 

nor  am  1  prepared  to  fully  accept  it.  It  is  so  con- 
trary to  all  my  notions  of  this  account,  so  difEerent 
from  all  the  explanations  of  connnentators  and  others, 
that  it  needs  careful  study  before  accepting  it,  and  I 
fear,  even  if  you  are  right,  that  it  will  be  long  before 
the  world  accepts  it. 

"  But,  however  that  may  be,  you  have  not  replied 
to  my  question,  which   I  will  repeat.     If  it  can  be 

made  out  that  verses  16,  IT,  and   18  refer 

Objection  26. 
to  an  earner  period  tlian,  say,  tor  example, 

that  in  which  fruit-trees  appeared,  does  it  not  destroy 
that  chronological  order  to  which  you  attach  so  much 
importance?  " 

1  think  not.  The  account  says,  "  Let  the  lights  in 
the  firmament  of  heaven  divide  ;  "  and  the  fulfillment 
of  the  command  is  set  forth  in  the  assertion  that  "it' 
was  so."  Then  comes  a  parenthetical  remark  of 
great  importance,  not,  it  is  true,  in  chronological 
order,  but  so  guarded  that  error  is  unnecessary. 
The  writer,  after  recording  their  obedience,  says, 
"  And  God  made  the  two  great  lights ;  ...  he  made 
the  stars  also,  and  placed  them  in  the  firmament "  for 
certain  purposes  ;  and  then  the  story,  momentarily 
interrupted,  moves  on  to  the  creation  of  certain  an- 
imals, the  creative  act  next  in  order,  not  to  the  cre- 
ation  of  the  lights,  but  to  their  apjjointment  to  divide 
between  the  day  and  the  night,  and  to  be  for  signs 
and  for  seasons. 


142  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

To  make  tlie  matter  clearer,  if  that  be  possible,  let 
me  illustrate.  In  some  brief  history  of  the  United 
States  I  find  what  purports  to  be  a  list  of  presidents. 
I  read  somethino;  like  this  : 

George  Washington, 

John  Adams, 

Thomas  Jefferson, 

James  Madison, 

James  Monroe, 

John  Quincj  Adams, 

Andrew  Jackson ; 
son  of  a  Scotch-Irishman  who  died  before  the  birth  of 
his  illustrious  son  ; 

Martin  Yan  Bnren,  etc. 
Now,  what  wpuld  be  thought  of  a  critic  who  should 
seriously  propose  to  reject  this  list  as  chronologically 
false  because,  after  Jackson's  name  as  president,  a 
circumstance  is  mentioned  which  occurred  long  before 
the  election  of  his  predecessors  to  that  high  office  ? 
If  he  should  insist  that  the  writer  has  violated  the 
chronological  order  we  should  justly  laugh  at  him ; 
and,  if  we  deemed  it  worth  while  to  waste  any  words 
on  him,  would  rej^ly  that  the  writer  of  the  list  had 
seen  fit  to  put  into  it  an  interesting  fact  about  whose 
chronological  position  there  could,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  be  no  mistake. 

So  in  regard  to  these  verses ;  the  author,  after 
speaking  of  these  days  and  nights,  and  of  tlie  re^Deated 


OUR  FIFTH  EVENING.  143 

occurrence  of  evenings  and  mornings,  and  of  tlie  obe- 
dience of  the  "  lights"  to  the  divine  fiat,  put  into  his 
narrative  a  statement  equally  out  of  its  order,  but 
one  about  which  there  ought  to  have  been  no  mis- 
take. But  readers  and  expounders  were  not  content 
with  the  story  as  written.  They  tried  to  force  out  of 
it  corroboration  of  their  so-called  science.  Such  ef- 
forts, based  upon  no  knowledge  of  the  actual  history 
of  our  globe,  resulted  in  a  muddle  from  which  the 
Christian  world  is  yet  far  from  having  escaped. 

"  But,  after  all,  is  it  conceivable  that  God  put  upon 
record  an  account  which  was  liable  to  mis- 

Objection  27. 

lead  men  in  their  unavoidable  ignorance  ? 

Would  he  not,  if  he  had  indited  the  narrative,  have 

told  them  plainly  that  the  creation  of  the  sun   and 

moon  long  preceded  the  fourth  period  ? " 

This   is  outside  of  the  limits  which  we  laid  down 

for  ourselves,  since  it  does  not  concern  the  truth  of 

the  statements  themselves,  but   refei-s  only  to  what 

God,  if  the  author,  would  or  would  not  have  done. 

Of  that,  I  submit,  we  are   not  the   proper  judges. 

This  much,  however,  is  forced  upon  us  as  we  look 

upon   the  works  of  creation.     Every-where  we  find 

mysteries — even  seeming  contradictions — which  yield 

only  to  close  study  and  increased  knowledge.     This  is 

one  of  the  most   marked   characteristics  of  what  all 

aduiit  to  be  God's  works.     The  earth  seems  to  be  flat ; 

all  the  M-orld,  "  in  their  then  unavoidable  ignorance," 
n 


144  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

thought  it  was  flat,  were  sure  it  was  flat,  knew  it  was 
flat ;  but  it  was  not.  The  stars  long  seemed  mere 
points  of  light  infinitely  smaller  than  the  snn,  but 
tliej  are  not.  Now,  if  paradoxes  and  puzzles  are  so 
abundantly  found  in  the  book  written  by  God's  finger 
in  the  universe  about  us,  and  if  men  "  in  their  un- 
avoidable ignorance  "  were  so  misled,  I  see  no  reason 
why  this  account,  if  from  the  same  source,  should  be 
free  from  similar  difliculties.  Indeed,  their  absence 
would  seem  to  indicate  another  author. 

"We  are  told  in  Proverbs  tliat  "  it  is  the  glory  of 
God  to  conceal  a  matter."  *  It  is  worth  while  to  re- 
mark that  the  statements  here  are  ])lain  enough,  and 
convey  only  a  truthful  meaning  until  tliey  were  put 
upon  the  rack  of  a  false  philosophy.  Conclusions  so 
arrived  at  are  of  necessity  false. 

I  will  only  add  that  the  more  our  knowledge  of 
the  world's  past  history  increases,  and  the  more  care- 
fully and  patiently  we  examine  this  account  in  the 
docile  spirit  of  true  philosophy,  the  less  the  difficul- 
ties appear.  Such,  at  least,  has  been  my  own  expe- 
rience. 

"  I  am  willing  to  admit  the  remarkable  character  of 
this  account,"  replied  the  professor,  "and  tliat  what  I 
have  been  accustomed  to  consider  fatal  objections  seem 

*  It  is  a  very  interesting  question,  How  much  could  one  ignorant 
of  science  and  free  from  theories  liave  learned  from  this  account  ? 
I  shall  endeavor,  by  and  by,  to  answer  the  inquiry. 


OUR  FIFTH  EVENING.  145 

to  vanish  in  the  light  of  modern  science,  and  that  in 
some  cases  thej  re-appear  as  harmonies  instead  of  con- 
tradictions, while  in  others  they  have  no  existence  in 
the  narrative  itself,  but  are  additions  of  a  compara- 
tively recent  date.  It  certainly  is  a  very  different 
document  from  what  I  had  been  led  to  believe. 

"  But,  admitting  all  that  you  claim,  it  follows  that 
if  the  author  of  this  account  did  not  in- 

Objection  28. 

tend  to  say  that  the  sun  and  moon  were 
made  during  that  fourth  period  he  has  given  them  no 
place  whatever  in  the  order  of  creation.  While  other 
things  far  less  noteworthy  were  recorded  in  their 
proper  places  the  sun  and  moon  are  allowed  to  slip 
in  on  the  creative  stage  unnoticed  and  unchronicled." 
It  is  true  the  writer  says  God  made  the  sun  and 
moon,  but  says  nothing  of  the  place  of  that  event  in 
the  creative  order,  or  rather,  I  should  say,  of  those 
events,  for  they  were  separated  by  a  long  interval.* 
We  now  know  that  they  were  formed  long  before 
God  divided  between  the  light  and  the  darkness. 
Any  man,  unprepossessed  by  theories,  reading  this 
story,  might  have  inferred  that  the  sun  long  preceded 
the  fourth  period,  in  which  it  is  first  spoken  of. 
The  mention  of  day  and  night,  the  tliree  evenings 
and  mornings,  the  command  to  "  lights  in  the  firma- 

*  That  they  seem  in  the  story  to  be  near  together  is  no  more  re- 
markable than  that  God's  other  work  makes  tiiem  seem  to  be  of  the 
same  size  and  distance. 


146  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

ment  of  heaven,"  tlie  explicit  statement  that  they 
Iiad  obeyed  God's  command  before  speaking  of  God's 
having  made  them,  ought,  even  before  modern  sci- 
ence, to  have  prevented  mistake.  But  to  those  who 
read  this  account  with  the  advantage  of  knowing 
something  of  the  early  history  of  the  sun  and  earth  it 
is  fairly  luminous.  That  people  did  misunderstand 
is  no  more  to  be  wondered  at  than  that  they  mis- 
understood the  size  and  distance  of  the  heavenly 
bodies. 

But  you  may  say  the  fact  remains  that  if  tlie  mak- 
ing of  the  two  great  lights  did  not  occur  in  the  fourtli 
period  it  has  no  place  in  the  narrative.  Well,  what 
if  their  creation  has  no  place  in  the  creative  order  ? 
What  then  ?  I  do  not  see  how  that  affects  the  ques- 
tions which  we  are  discussing.  We  agreed  to  keep 
strictly  to  this  :  Are  the  statements  in  that  account 
true,  and  are  they  placed  in  the  pi'oper  order  ?  We 
have  nothing  to  do  with  omissions. 

We  have  not  the  right  to  say  wliat  shoidd  or  should 
not  have  been  inserted.  That  was  a  question  to  be 
decided  by  the  author  according  to  his  views  of  pro- 
priety. If  we  think  our  views  are  better  than  his  it 
is  merely  a  question  as  to  his  good  j  udgment,  and  does 
not  in  the  least  affect  his  truthfulness. 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply,  but  merely 
said  :  "  We  have  had  enough  for  one  evening.  We 
will  adjourn  till  to-morrow  night." 


OUR  FIFTH  EVENING.  147 

A  gleaner,  going  over  the  ground  which  we  have 
just  passed,  was  struck  by  the  singular  circumstance 
that  dividing  between  the  day  and  the  night  has  a  fiat 
all  to  itself  and  in  the  most  conspicuous  place,  wdiile 
signs  and  seasons,  days  and  years,  are  all  lumped  into 
one  command,  and  asks  why  ?  It  was  thousands  of 
years  after  Moses  before  the  curious  fact  was  known 
that  the  varying  length  of  the  day  and  night  was  the 
first  and  most  striking  evidence  of  an  increase  in  the 
obliquity  of  the  earth's  axis,  the  thing  that  was  neces- 
sary before  the  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven 
could  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
years. 

I  found  no  argument  on  this,  but  speak  of  it  to 
show  the  drift  of  every  thing  in  the  narrative  toward 
some  near  harmony  with  the  earth's  history.  Its 
author  must  have  known  all  about  it. 


148  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


OUR    SIXTH    EVENING. 


OUR  earth's  rank  in  the  universe. 

The  following  evening  was  too  stormy  for  the  Pro- 
fessor to  venture  out,  bnt  the  next  evening  he  was 
promptly  on  hand.  We  at  once  took  up  the  thread 
of  oar  last  conversation. 

"  At  least  in  one  respect,"  said  he,  "  I  think  you 
must  admit  that  Moses  was  in  error,  for 

Objection  29.  _      ' 

he  shows  a  great,  but  I  must  admit  very 
natural,  ignorance  as  to  the  relative  size  and  impor- 
tance of  the  earth  and  heavenly  bodies.  He  thought 
that  the  former  was  the  center  of  the  universe,  and 
that  the  sun  and  moon  were  less  than  it,  but  greater 
than  the  stars.  I  need  not  say  that  modern  science 
has  reversed  all  that." 

This  is  an  old  charge,  I  replied,  so  often  repeated 
that  many  believe  Moses  really  says  so.  But  it  is 
only  one  example  of  the  injustice  with  which  this  ac- 
count has  been  ti'eated,  and  requires  no  other  reply 
than  that  which  I  have  so  often  made  before  :  "  Mo- 
ses does  not  say  so."  If  I  am  mistaken  take  the 
book  and  show  where  it  says  (1)  the  world  is  the 
center  of  the  universe ;  or,  (2)  the  sun  and  moon  are 
less  than  the  earth  ;  or,  (3)  larger  than  the  stars. 


OUR  SIXTH  EVENING.  149 

[He  first  reads  verses  14-19.]  "  I  must  admit  that 
Moses  does  not  give  these  three  propositions  in  so 
many  words ;  but  lie  does  saj  tliat  God  made  and  set 
the  two  hghts  in  the  heavens  to  give  light  upon  the 
earth,  and,  moreover,  he  expressly  calls  them  great 
lights,  and  never  intimates  that  the  stars  are  more 
than  specks  of  light/' 

Well,  is  it  not  true  ?  Did  not  God  make  them  all  ? 
Did  he  not  set  them  in  the  heavens  ?  Do  they  not 
give  light  upon  the  earth?  Are  there  not  two  great 
lights?  Certuinl}^,  all  this  may  be,  and  is  true,  with- 
out a  word  as  to  their  size, 

"It  is  strange  how  you  get  away  from  difficulties. 
Yes,  it  is  trne  that  they  are  '  for  lights  objection  30. 
to  give  liffht  upon  the  earth,'  but  surely  "Moses    says 

o  n  tr  '  J     sun  and  moou 

that  is  not  their  only  use."  ^ere   made 

•^  merely  to  give 

Moses  nowhere  says  it  is.     I  see  in  the   ngbt  to  the 
•^  eartli." 

account  merely  a  statement  that  they 
were  to  be  for  lights  to  give  light  upon  the  earth, 
and  that  God  made  them  and  put  them  in  the 
heavens  to  give  liglit  upon  the  earth;  and,  whatever 
their  other  uses,  you  caimot  deny  that  this  is  one, 
nor  that  it  was  purposed  in  the  divine  mind,  un- 
less you  think  God  did  not  know  the  result  of  his 
own  acts. 

As  to  the  relative  size  of  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  I 
see  no  intimation  whatever.  It  speaks  of  the  sun  as 
the  greater  light,  and  of  the  moon  as  the  lesser  light, 


150  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

and  that  is  all.  In  that  I  see  no  error.  It  was  true 
then,  and  it  is  true  now. 

Nothing  is  said  about  the  stars  except  that  God 
made  them  also.  Within  the  last  few  years  the 
spectroscope  has  confirmed  this  by  showing  that  they 
are  composed  of  the  same  materials  as  the  sun,  and 
we  know  from  astronomers  that  they  are  subject  to 
the  same  laws  of  gravitation. 

"  Yes,"  the  Professor  answered,  "  but  Moses  says 
the  greater  light  was  made  to  rule  the  day  and  the 
lesser  light  to  rule  the  night.  Certainly  this  implies 
inferiority  to  the  earth,  whose  days  and  nights  are 
deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  l)e  tlius  honored." 

Whether  it  does  or  not,  it  certainly  does  not  im- 
ply any  thing  as  to  size.  But  it  is  not  with  Moses 
that  you  are  contending,  but  with  Nature.  The  sun 
does  rule  the  day.  As  its  northern  declination  in- 
ci-eases,  or  decreases,  so  do  tlie  days.  Tlie  moon,  too, 
shines  longer  in  the  nights  as  the  sun  goes  south- 
ward, and  gives  greater  relief  to  the  hours  of  dark- 
ness in  the  long  nights  of  winter.  Is  it  not  true,  then, 
that  the  greater  light  rules  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light 
the  night  ?  And  will  you  venture  to  say  tliat  this 
was  not  foreseen  by  their  Creator  ?  No  !  These  state- 
ments, taken  without  addition  or  diminution,  are  true. 

"It  is  amazing  how  objections  vanish  by  sosiin})le 
a  process  as  comparing  them  with  tlie  record  itself.  I 
know  nothing  like  it." 


OUR  SIXTH  EVENING.  151 

If  I  read  the  book  of  nature  aright,  no  beings 
resembling  any  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge,  or 
of  whom  we  can  even  conceive,  exist  now  or  could 
by  any  possibility  have  existed  in  the  past  on  the 
sun  or  any  of  the  jjlanets  or  moons  of  the  solar 
system. 

The  snn  is  inconceivably  hot,  an  ocean  of  fire  whose 
waves  rise  and  fall,  not  a  few  feet,  but  thonsando  of 
miles.  On  it  are  in  constant  operation  whirlwinds 
and  currents  rushing  thousands  of  miles  in  a  minute, 
not  horizontally  only,  but  upward  and  downward. 
The  pretty  belief  was  once  prevalent  that  clouds  of 
enormous  thickness  protected  the  surface  of  an  in- 
terior globe  from  the  intense  heat  of  a  luminous  and 
fiery  envelope,  and  that  thus  shielded  there  was  a 
world  of  light  and  beauty  inhabited  by  intelhgent  be- 
ings. But  this  was  poetry,  not  science,  and  no  as- 
tronomer now  accepts  it.* 

The  planet  Mercury  is  hot  enough  to  melt  lead. 

Yenus  has,  during  its  day,  a  temperature  above 
that  of  boiling  water,  and  from  the  great  inclination 
of  its  axis  (49  degrees,  51  minutes)  its  polar  circles 

*  This  theory  was  suggested  by  "Wilson,  but  is  generally  attributed 
to  the  elder  Herschel. 

"  The  discovery  of  the  conservation  of  force,  and  the  convertibility 
of  heat  and  force,  was  fatal  to  tliis  tlieory.  Such  a  sun  as  that  of 
Herschel  would  have  cooled  off  entirelj^  in  a  few  days,  and  then  we 
should  receive  neither  light  nor  heat  from  it." — Professor  Newcomb, 
Popular  Astronomy. 


152  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

and  tropics  overlap,  so  tliat  its  climate  must  be  the 
most  extraordinary  imaginable. 

Mars  seems  the  most  like  an  inhabitable  planet, 
possessing,  as  it  does,  both  air  and  water,  but  it  re- 
sembles the  earth  in  some  of  its  earlier  geological 
periods  rather  than  at  the  present  time.  It  seems 
destitute  of  vegetation,  for  although  it  has  well- 
marked  seasons,  and  the  snow  can  be  seen  melting 
away,  there  are  no  such  changes  in  the  color  of  its 
land  as  would  indicate  the  coming  and  going  of  plant 
life. 

As  for  the  asteroids,  no  one  thinks  them  inhabited. 
The  indications  are  very  strong  that  Jupiter,  Saturn, 
Uranus,  and  Neptune  are  yet  in  an  intensely  hot  and 
probably  molten  condition.* 

As  to  the  planets,  veiy  few  can  now  be  found  who 
regard  any  of  them  as  inhabitable  by  beings  of  whom 
we  can  conceive,  but  there  are  some  who  think  it  at 
least  possible  that  the  moons  of  Jupiter,  and  perhaps 
of  the  other  outer  planets,  could  support  beings  like 
ourselves.  We  know  so  little  of  these  bodies  that  any 
opinion  can  be  but  the  merest  conjecture  except  as  to 
one  thing.  The  two  largest  ones  must  be  subjected 
to  great  extremes  of  cold,  since  the  night  of  the  one 
is  eighty-six  hours  long,  and  of  the  other  two  hun- 
dred, or  more  than  eight  days  such  as  ours.     In  the 

*  Newcomb'a  Popular  Astronomy,  pp.  516,  519,  brushes  away  the 
once  common  belief  that  other  worlds  are  iuliabited. 


OUR  SIXTH  EVENING.  153 

case  of  the  more  remote  planets  the  conditions  on 
their  moons  are  yet  more  unfavorable  for  either  plants 
or  animals. 

There  remains  only  our  moon.  Science  shows 
it  has  neither  air  nor  water.  And  if  that  is  not 
enough  to  prove  it  uninhabitable,  astronomers  have 
found  that  its  temperature  varies  far  beyond  the 
possible  limits  of  endurance. 

"  Although  no  one  believes  the  moon  now  inhabited, 
yet  not  a  few  think  it  did  once  support  a  teeming  popu- 
lation, the  air  and  water  having  been  absorbed  into  the 
interstices  of  the  crust,  or  of  the  rocks  that  form  it." 

As  Professor  Huxley  says,  "  We  will,  if  you  please, 
test  this  view  in  the  light  of  facts." 

Ever  since  the  moon  became  cool  enough  to  be 
covered  with  a  crust,  and  of  course  long  before  the 
period  of  supposed  life,  its  days  and  nights  have  been 
essentially  as  they  are  now,  nearly  three  hundred  and 
forty  hours  of  uninterrupted  sunshine,  followed  by  a 
night  of  equal  length.  Even  if  the  moon  had  possessed 
an  atmosphere  as  dense  as  that  of  the  earth — scarcely 
possible  with  its  so  much  smaller  mass — a  sun  shining 
for  two  weeks,  and  a  night  for  an  equal  time,  would 
have  produced  extremes  of  heat  and  cold  fatal  to 
beings  of  flesh  and  blood. 

"  I  do  not  know  about  that.  Man  has  wonder- 
ful ability  to  resist  changes  of  temperature.  I 
think  that  might  have  been  got  altmg  with,  provid- 


154  GENESIS  I  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

ing   the  moon  really  possessed  an    atmosphere   and 
oceans." 

The  present  condition  of  the  moon's  surface  seems 
to  be  proof  that  it  never  had  any  water,  at  least  not 
any  large  amount,  as  would  be  needed  to  fill  an  ocean. 
It  presents  an  inconceivable  roughness.  There  is 
nothing  on  the  earth,  except  in  some  very  limited  and 
recent  volcanic  regions,  to  compare  with  it.  Now, 
when  we  consider  the  eroding  power  of  water  and 
frost,  as  we  see  their  effects  here  on  our  own  planet  in 
the  cutting  and  carving  of  mountains,*  and  then  reflect 
that  the  moon  has  been  a  solid  body  at  least  as  long 
as  the  earth  (many  times  longer,  according  to  most 
l)elievers  in  the  nebular  hypothesis),  and  during 
all  that  infinitude  of  time  has  experienced  not  one 
winter  to  each  of  our  years,  but  thirteen  ;  that  the  cold 
is  not  equaled  outside  of  our  arctic  regions,  it  seems 
impossible  that  the  moon's  surface,  had  there  been  an 
atmosphere  and  oceans  on  it,  would  to-day  present 
any  thing  more  than  the  gentlest  undulations.  The 
wonderful  roughness,  so  visible  in  every  telescope, 
has  been  subjected  to  no  such  influence ;  hence  I  find 
myself  forced  to  conclude  that  neither  air  nor  water 
in  large  quantities  ever  existed  there,  and  that  life 
was  always  an  impossibility. 

*This  is  so  well  known  to  geologists  as  to  require  no  proof.  But 
tlie  non-geological  reader  will  do  well  to  turn  to  Dana's  Manual  of 
Geology,  page  635.  He  will  be  amazed  to  see  what  has  been  done  by 
the  action  of  water. 


OUR  SIXTH  EVENING.  155 

"  What,"  asked  the  Professor,  "  has  this  to  do  with 
the  Mosaic  account  ?  " 

More,  probably,  than  you  imagine.  You  have  found 
fault  with  Moses  because,  as  you  say,  he  gives  undue 
importance  to  our  earth.  Now,  omitting  spiritual 
beings — whom  your  barometrics*  does  not  recog- 
nize— of  what  use  are  the  sun  and  moon,  except  to 
our  earth  ?  Mind,  I  do  not  say  they  are  of  no  other 
use ;  I  ask  you  to  tell  of  some  other,  and  what  it  is.  Of 
course,  I  know  that  the  sun  holds  the  planets  in  their 
orbits  ;  bnt  that  office  is  only  subordinate  to  the  pur- 
pose, whatever  it  was,  for  which  the  solar  system  was 
formed,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  moon.  She 
does  not  hold  any  bodies  in  their  places. 

'•  It  seems  very  absurd  to  conceive  of  the  sun's  being 
made  for  this  little  earth.     Your  question 

^  _  ObjectloaSl. 

implies  a  return  to  the  old  astronomy,  which 
taught  that  the  earth  was  immovable  and  that  the  uni- 
verse went  around  it." 

"And  the  universe  went  around  it!"  I  have  not 
intimated  such  a  belief,  nor  do  I  see  any  thing  in  this 
narrative  which  points  that  way.  I  see  only  a  state- 
ment that  God  made  these  bodies  to  give  light  upon 
the  earth,  and  to  be  for  time-measures ;  and  these 
very  things  I  see  them  do.     That  God  purposed  these 

*  Barometrics :  baros,  weight,  and  mefron,  a  measure ;  that  division 
of  science  wliich  has  to  do  only  with  what  can  be  weiglied  in  grains, 
or  tons,  or  measured  in  inches. 


156  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

results  when  he  made  these  bodies  I  must  believe  or 
consider  him  ignorant  of  the  results  to  flow  from  his 
own  actions. 

As  to  the  absurdity  of  which  you  speak,  I  cannot 
see  it.  I  have  in  mind  an  illustration  of  what  has 
been  done  for  our  earth  that  may  have  no  weight 
with  you,  but  to  me  is  of  infinite  importance.  I 
have  it  on  evidence  which  to  me  is  demonstration,  that 
He  who  made  all  things,  and  by  whom  all  things  con- 
sist, actually  lived  some  thirty-three  years  on  this 
globe  in  a  human  form.  The  greater  includes  the  less, 
and,  believing  this,  I  can  easily  believe  that  he  made 
the  sun  and  moon  for  man. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  men  who  think  it  ab- 
surd and  belittling  that  God  should  do  so  much  for 
man  regard  all  final  causes  as  absurd.  In  other 
words,  it  belittles  God  to  think  that  he  made  these 
lights  for  so  small  a  purpose  as  the  use  and  bene- 
fit of  our  race ;  but  it  is  not  absurd  to  suppose  he 
made  them  for  no  purpose  at  all !  Making  them  for 
man,  forsooth,  is  belittling ;  making  them  for  nothing 
whatever  is  in  character  with  a  god,  an  apt  illustration 
of  that  unconscious  intelligence  which  some  would 
have  us  believe  made  the  world. 

Such  a  god  would  be  worthy  of  an  agnostic,  for 
such  a  being  would  be  unknowable  and  inconceivable. 

But  you  have  not  answered  my  question,  and  I  wait 
with  some  curiosity  for  you  to  tell  me  of  some  other 


OUR  SIXTH  EVENING.  157 

use  for  which  tliese  bodies  were  made.  I  submit  that 
"  for  his  pleasure  "  does  not  answer  my  question.  It 
is  merely  a  child's  answer,  "  I  did  it  because  I  had  a 
mind  to,"  and  answers  nothing. 

"  I  must  confess  that  I  cannot  conceive  of  any  use 
other  than  that  of  which  you  have  spoken,  altliough, 
perhaps,  some  one  else  may.  Until  I  have  further 
light  I  am  content  to  give  up  what  I  have  always 
supposed  a  real  and  important  objection ;  and  if  you 
are  willing  I  am  ready  to  take  up  the  next  period." 

As  it  was  late  we  thouglit  it  best  to  defer  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  next  period  to  another  evening. 


158  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


OUR   SEVENTH    EVENING. 


THE     ANIMALS. 

Genesis  i,  20-25. 

20  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly  the  moving 
creature  that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  mayfly  above  the  earth  in  the  open 
firmament  of  heaven. 

21  And  God  created  great  whales,  and  every  living  creature  that 
moveth,  which  the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly,  after  their  kind,  and 
every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind:  and  God  saw  that  it  urns  good. 

22  And  God  blessed  them,  saying,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  aiid  fill 
the  waters  in  the  seas,  and  let  fowl  multiply  iri  the  earth. 

23  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  fifth  day. 

24  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  after 
his  kind,  cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind: 
and  it  was  so. 

25  And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and  cattle  after 
their  kind,  and  eve)-y  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  after  his  kind: 
and  God  saw  that  it  tuas  good. 

The  Professor  read  these  verses  aloud,  and  then  said  : 

"  This  account  of  the  creation  of  animals  has  been 

thought  the  most  vulnerable  portion  of  the  narrative. 

It  is  said  that  Moses  here  teaches  that  there 

Error  33.    "No 

animals  before   were  no  aniuials  before  whales,  or  at  least 

present  kinds."  -,  •     t      c  i  i  •    i 

some  ls;ma  oi  vi^ater  vertebrates,  and  birds, 
and  no  land  ci'eatures  before  cattle,  beasts,  and  other 
living  species.  Of  course,  every  tyro  in  geology  knows 
better.  I  think,  from  wliat  you  said  when  speaking 
of  the  third  period,  that  your  view  is  very  different." 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  159 

Yes,  it  is  different.  It  seems  to  me  that  all  con- 
flict between  tliis  account  and  science  comes  from 
people's  interpolating  their  own  notions  of  what 
Moses  ought  to  say,  and  assuming  that  he  intended  to 
teach  not  what  he  actually  says,  but  what  they  think 
he  ought  to  say. 

In  regard  to  life,  and  as  to  the  order  of  the  differ- 
ent kinds  of  organic  forms,  this  is  all  that  the  record 
says :  The  earth  brought  forth  grass,  herbs,  and  fruit- 
trees.  Afterward,  the  waters  swarmed  with  the  liv- 
ing moving  creatures  and  great  whales,  and  fowls  flew 
in  the  air.  Yet  later  the  land  produced  cattle,  beasts, 
and  other  living  creatures.     Or,  in  briefest  form  : 

1.  Silence  as  to  any  prior  hfe,  plant  or  animal. 

2.  Present  plants. 

3.  Whales  and  other  water  animals  yet  living,  and 
modern  birds. 

4.  Cattle,  beasts,  and  other  land  animals  of  living 
kinds. 

In  geological  parlance,  he  speaks  only  of  the  last 
three  "  horizons "  out  of  the  many  which  are  now 
known  to  have  existed.  Is  his  order  correct  ?  I  have 
already  quoted  De  la  Saporta  as  saying,  "  Before  the 
end  of  the  tertiary  the  immense  majority  of  our  actual 
florae  were  established  in  the  limits  which  they  now 
occupy." 

Professor  Dana,  in  his  Manual  of  Geology^  third 

edition,  page  518,  says  that  "  all  the  lishes,  reptiles, 
11 


160  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

birds,  and  iiianiinals  of  the  tertiary  and  earlier  times 
are  now  extinct."  Hence,  "living  "  kinds  caine  after 
the  tertiary,  and  consequently  after  the  present 
flora. 

In  the  next  period,  the  quaternary,  are  found  the 
very  fauna  that  Moses  mentions,  to  wit,  whales  and 
other  water  vertebrates  and  birds,  and  these,  too,  of 
living  species ;  or,  as  Professor  Nicholson  says,  in  his 
L'ife  History  of  the  Earthy  page  345  :  "  No  extinct 
species  of  lishes,  amphibians,  or  reptiles  of  the  qua- 
ternary have  been  found."  He  says  the  birds  too,  so 
far  as  found,  are  all  of  living  species  except  a  few 
kinds — the  moas  and  other  wingless  birds — and  of 
these  probably  all  became  extinct  within  a  few  cent- 
uries. 

"  The  mammals  of  this  period,  with  few  exceptions, 
are  extinct."  *  Le  Conte,  in  his  Geology^  P^g'^  569, 
says  :  "  In  the  quaternary  came  a  new  set  of  mammals, 
which  also  have  disappeared  ;  and  lastly  came  present 
species,  the  living  mammals  of  to-day  " — just  exactly 
as  Moses  says.  So  then,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  if  these 
high  authorities  are  right  the  order  in  which  Moses 
has  placed  his  three  "  horizons  "  is  correct. 

"  Then,"  said  the  Professor,  "  if  this  be  so,  Moses 
says  nothing  about  the  first  introduction  of  life,  and 
leaves  unnoticed  and  unspoken  of  the  millions  of  years 
that  preceded  the  few  thousands  since  the  tertiary." 

*  Dana,  Manual  of  Geulo'jy,  p.  56.3. 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  161 

Of  all  this  he  says  nothing  whatever.  W]i_y 
should  he  ?  No  one  at  that  time  knew  any  thing  of 
the  millions  of  years  and  the  long  series  of  "  popula- 
tions "  before  man,  and  there  was  no  reason  why  God 
should  reveal  it  in  a  hook  given,  not  to  teach  science, 
but  religion.  It  makes  known  God's  creatorship  of 
all  the  vegetable  and  animal  world  of  which  any  one 
then  had  any  knowledge.  This  it  does,  not  in  hap- 
hazard order,  but  in  that  which  geology  says  is 
correct. 

"But,"  said  the  Professor,  "you  will  find  it  very 
difficult  to  persuade  Christendom   that  it 

-,.      .  Objection  33. 

is  right  to  hmit  the  account  to  })lants  and 
creatures  of  the  present  day.     The  world  has  always 
believed  that  this  story  tells  of  the  first  appearance  of 
life  on  the  globe." 

I  am  well  aware  how  difficult  it  is  to  get  out  of 
old  ruts.  But  what  right  has  any  one  to  say  that 
"grass,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees" — land-plants — really 
mean  the  sea-weeds  which  for  so  long  were  the  only 
vegetation  ?  How  could  the  animals  named  by  Moses 
refer  to  times  when  there  was  not  one  whale  or  fowl 
or  vertebrate  of  any  kind  ?  Taken  exactly  as  it  says, 
it  is  true  and  its  order  correct.  Forcing  the  text  in- 
volves it  in  error.  I  protest  against  such  liberties, 
and  then,  because  when  so  twisted  it  is  not  true,  charg- 
ing it  with  contradicting  science.  Professor  Huxley 
is  very  severe  upon  those  who  force  the  Hebrew  to 


162  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

saj  what  they  think  it  ought,  and  yet  lie  does  the  very 
same  thing,  for  he  assumes  that  Moses  teaches  tliat 
his  phmts  and  animals  are  all  that  ever  lived,  and 
on  this  assumption  he  bases  his  whole  attack  on 
this  chapter.* 

The  Professor  replied  that  this  had  been  to  him  a 

real  difficulty,  for  he,  too,  had  always  supposed  that 

Moses  did  tell  the  story  of  all  life.     But,  granting 

this  to  be  a  mistake,  there  was  another 

Objection  34.  .  ,  .   ,      .  i  i  •         -nr 

matter  m  which,  it  seemed  to  him,  Moses 
was  in  the  wrong.  Darwin  and  others  who  have  studied 
the  world's  history  in  its  fossils  say  that  present  spe- 
cies sprang  from  others  less  highly  organized,  chang- 
ing from  earlier  forms  to  present  by  imperceptible 
degrees,  requiring,  as  Darwin  says,  perhaps  ten  thou- 
sand generations  for  a  single  well-defined  species ; 
while  in  Genesis  each  kind  is  represented  as  made  ab- 
ruptly from  water  and  earth,  and  not  from  previously 
existing  living  forms. 

I  see  nothing,  I  replied,  as  to  the  how.  I  read 
that  the  plants  sprouted  forth  from  the  ground  ;  that 
the  waters  swarmed  with  certain  kinds  of  life ;  and 
that  the  earth  brought  forth  cattle,  beasts,  etc. ;  but 
nothing  whatever  as  to  the  way  in  which  it  was  done. 
Therefore  there  can  be  no  contradiction.  The  account 
merely  says  that  God  commanded  these  things  to  be, 
tells  us  the  command  was  obeyed,  and  leaves  us  to 

*See  his  "Genesis  and  its  Interpreters,"  in  the  Ninetemth  Century. 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  163 

discover,  if  wo  can,  how  it  was  done.  To  me  it  looks 
most  reasonable,  and  most  in  accordance  with  Christ's 
methods  (by  whom  all  things  were  made)  when  per- 
forming miracles,  to  use  what  was  nearest  ready  for 
his  pnrj)ose ;  and  hence  that  present  animals  and 
plants  sprang  from  the  nearest  preceding  species 
rather  than  from  raw  water  and  earth.*  So  far  as 
this  I  am  an  evolutionist ;  but  it  is  evolution  under 
divine  guidance,  and  no  less  God's  act  than  any  other 
mode  of  bringing  living  forms  into  existence. 

As  to  the  abruptness  of  these  occurrences,  if  by 
that  you  mean  that  Moses  represents  the  plants  and 
animals  as  coming  into  being  in  some  way  more  rapid 
than  that  in  which  Darwin  and  his  followers  suppose 
"  development "  to  have  gone  on,  I  quite  agree  with 
you.f  According  to  these  gentlemen,  the  change 
from  the  old  to  the  new  species  was  an  almost  infi- 
nitely long  process,  requiring  thousands  of  generations 
for  its  completion.     Compared  with  this  the  Mosaic 

*  For  a  fuller  statement,  see  "  Miracle,  Law,  and  Evolution,"  by 
the  writer,  in  vol.  vii,  article  7,  of  the  Ti-ansactions  of  the  New  York 
Academy  of  Science. 

f  See  Origin  of  Species,  page  91.  To  form  a  fairly  well  marked 
variety  would  require  a  thousand  or  more  generations.  Darwin  is 
generous  of  time.  On  page  90  he  says :  "  But  each  of  these  changes 
may  represent  a  million  of  generations."  Here  the  mathematicians 
step  in  and  {Recent  Advances  in  Science,  p.  175,  London,  1876)  show 
that  the  possibility  of  life  upon  the  earth  cannot  extend  back  into 
limitless  eternity.  Some  fifteen  millions  of  years,  a  mere  bagatelle  to 
what  Darwinism  demands,  would  take  us  back  to  an  earth  whose 
surface  was  molten. 


164  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

"development"  appears  sudden,  or,  if  you  please, 
"  abrupt." 

But  abruptness  is  no  longer  out  of  harmony  with 
science.  Its  tendency  is  strongly  that  M'ay.  Professor 
Huxley,  in  his  Zat/  Sermons,  says  :  "  Darwin  unneces- 
sarily hampered  himself  with  the  motto  that  appears 
so  often  in  his  pages,  '  Nature  makes  no  leaps.' " 

Professor  J.  Le  Conte,  in  his  Elements  of  Geology^ 
page  372,  says :  "  But  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  the 
suddenness  of  a  new  class — -fishes — and  a  new  depart- 
ment— vertebrates — of  the  animal  kingdom.  Observe 
that  at  the  horizon  of  their  appearance  in  the  upper- 
most Silurian  there  is  no  apparent  break  in  the  sti-ata, 
and  therefore  no  evidence  of  a  lost  record,*  and  yet 
the  advance  is  immense.  It  is  impossible  to  account 
for  this  unless  we  admit  paroxysms  of  more  rapid 
movement  of  evolution,  and  that  when  conditions  are 
favorable  and  the  time  is  ripe  for  a  particular  change  it 
takes  place  with  exceptional  rapidity  and  in  a  few 
generations."  "  Paroxysms  of  more  rapid  movement 
of  evolution  "  is  a  scientific  euphemism  for  what  in 
Genesis  are  represented  as  results  of  the  divine  fiat : 
Let  there  be ;  or,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  ;  or,  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth. 

The  following,  from  Nicholson's  Ancient  Life  Ilis- 

*  A  lost  record  is  the  deus  ex  machina  that  helps  your  thorough 
evolutionist  out  of  every  trouble.  It  is  so  easy  to  say  and  so  hard  lo 
disprove  ! 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  165 

tory  of  the  Earthy  P^^ge  3Y3,  is  in  full  agreement  with 
Le  Conte :  "  Upon  no  theory  of  evolution  can  we  find  a 
satisfactory  explanation  for  the  constant  introduction 
throughout  geological  time  of  new  forms  of  life  which 
do  not  appear  to  have  been  preceded  by  pre-existent 
allied  types.  The  graptolites  and  trilobites  have  no 
known  predecessors.  The  insects  appear  suddenly 
in  the  Devonian,  and  the  arachnida  (the  spider  fam- 
ily) and  the  myriopods  in  the  Carboniferous  under 
well  differentiated  and  highly  specialized  types.  The 
dibranchiate  cephalopods  appear  with  equal  apparent 
suddenness  in  the  older  Mesozoic,  and  no  known 
type  of  the  Paleozoic  period  can  be  pointed  out  as 
a  possible  ancestor.  The  wonderful  dicotyledonous 
flora  of  the  Cretaceous  similarly  surprises  us  without 
any  prophetic  annunciation  from  the  older  Jurassic." 
The  fact  that  Professor  Nicholson  is  not  a  believer  in 
any  special  fiat  gives  all  the  more  weii^ht  to  his  state- 
ments, since  they  cannot  be  suspected  of  a  theological 
bias.  Professor  Dana  adds  to  this  the  great  weight 
of  his  name.  In  his  Manual  of  Geology^  P'^gc  600, 
he  says :  "  The  transitions  between  species,  genera, 
tribes,  etc.,  in  geological  history  are,  with  rare  excep- 
tions, abrupt."  The  more  these  facts  are  studied  the 
more  evident  it  becomes  that  at  certain  epochs  whollj' 
new  types,  that  is,  with  predecessors  not  at  all  simi- 
lar, started  into  existence  without  as.^ignable  cause; 
whereas,  at  other  epochs,  although  the  tj^pes  may  be 


166  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

referable  to  older  forms,  yet  new  genera  and  species 
came  with  equal  suddenness  into  being,  and  witli 
equal  lack  of  assignable  cause.  So,  too,  Moses  tells  of 
new  plants  and  animals  appearing  with  suddenness ; 
but  lie  assigns  a  cause  wlncli  is  amply  sufficient  for 
the  effect. 

Darwin,  in  his  Origin  of  Species,  page  424,  sets 
forth  his  belief  that  the  Creator  at  some  remote 
period  formed  "  four  or  five  progenitors  of  animals, 
and  an  equal  or  less  number  of  plants ; "  or,  as  he 
elsewhere  expresses  it,  "  Life  with  its  several  powers 
was  originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few 
forms."  To  this  Messrs.  Le  Conte,  Nicholson,  and 
Dana  add,  that  instead  of  the  uniformly  impercept- 
ible changes  which  Darwin  claims  in  his  theory  the 
changes  were  abi'upt  and  brief,  and,  so  far  as  science 
knows,  unaccountable,  save  by  some  deeper  law  which 
as  yet  no  one  has  been  able  to  discover — perhaps  1 
should  say,  no  scientist  has  been  able  to  discover. 

If  the  plants  and  animals  of  which  Moses  speaks 
were  produced  as  he  says  they  were,  I  cannot  see  in 
what  respect  the  geological  record  would  be  different 
from  what  it  is. 

"  This  is  very  curious.  But  as  a  scientific  man  I 
am  exceedingly  unwilling  to  admit  any  di- 

Objection35.  ,  .  ='/.  ^     "         ,         „ 

Vine  interposition.  1  would  refer  every 
tiling  to  the  working  of  law  ;  in  some  cases  too  deep 
for  us  to  discover,  but  vet  law." 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  167 

Tliis  would  lead  to  a  discussion  as  to  what  is  meant 
by  law — a  question  outside  of  our  limits.  All  we 
promised  to  do  was  to  inquire  whether  the  statements 
in  that  first  chapter  of  Genesis  agree  with  those  rec- 
ords which  science  has  read  for  us  in  the  rocks. 

Still,  I  will  say  a  few  words  as  indicating  what 
seems  to  me  the  truth  in  the  matter.  It  is  a  sugges- 
tion, and  not  an  argument. 

To  make  my  meaning  clearer  I  will  borrow  an 
illustration  from  the  laws  of  our  country.  These  are 
of  two  kinds ;  those  which,  for  lack  of  a  better  name, 
may  be  called  ordinary  laws,  because  they  apply  to 
circumstances  which  are  constantly  recurring,  since 
they  arise  from  the  ordinary  conditions  of  society ; 
and  those  which  may  be  called  special  laws,  because 
tliey  refer  to  matters  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
cannot  occur  again.  Laws,  for  example,  which  pre- 
scribe the  proper  mode  of  executing  and  attesting 
wills  or  enforcing  contracts,  or  which  forl)id  theft 
and  murder,  are  of  the  first  class,  while  the  resolution 
which  declared  the  American  colonies  free  and  inde- 
pendent States,  and  the  law  which  bestowed  money 
and  a  tract  of  land  on  La  Fayette,  belong  to  the  sec- 
ond class.  Those  who  believe  physical  law  to  be  only 
the  manifestations  of  omnipotent  will  refer  to  the 
latter  not  merely  acts  of  constant  repetition,  such  as 
those  which  result  from  gravitation  or  chemical  affin- 
ity, but  such  as  are  in  the  nature  of  the  case  infrequent 


168  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

or  even  solitary.  The  former  may  be  called  ordinary 
law,  the  latter  come  under  special  law.  The  calling 
of  the  universe  into  existence  was  a  special  law,  since 
the  act  admitted  of  no  repetition.  In  this  sense  the 
appearing  of  plants  and  animals  on  our  globe  was 
but  the  manifestation  of  law.  So,  too,  the  "  develop- 
ment" of  new  classes  and  orders,  or  even  of  new  gen- 
era, must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  have  occurred 
but  a  few  times  in  proportion  to  the  births  by  ordi- 
nary generation.  Hence  it,  too,  comes  under  the 
head  of  special  law — that  is,  the  divine  will  acting  in 
this  special  manner  at  the  proper  epochs.  It  makes 
no  difference  whether  we  attribute  it  to  God's  direct 
act,  to  God's  purpose,  to  God's  fiat,  or  to  "  special  law." 
In  this  sense  I  admit  that  the  production  of  the  plants 
and  animals  of  which  Moses  speaks  was  due  to  law. 
To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply,  but  said : 
"How   about   the   age   of   man?      Many 

Objection  36.  , 

think  that  the  six  thousand  years  usually 
allotted  to  the  duration  of  the  human  race  is  far  too 
small.     What  is  your  opinion  ?  " 

I  do  not  find  any  thing  about  it  in  tliis  narrative, 
nor  can  it,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  see,  be  satisfactorily 
made  out  from  the  histories  recorded  in  the  Bible. 
I  am  sure,  however,  that  the  appearance  of  man  on 
the  earth  was  very  recent. 

"But  is  it  not  thought  that  man  lived  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  glacial  epoch  ?  " 


OUR  SEVENTU  EVENING.  169 

Yes,  I  replied,  and  probably  it  is  true ;  but  you 
must  remember  that  the  glacial  period  is  something 
very  indefinite.  In  fact,  it  reaches  to  the  present 
day,  or  at  least  there  have  all  along  been  glaciers,  and 
there  are  yet ;  and  under  their  debris  the  remains  of 
animals  and  plants  of  present  species  have  been  de- 
posited. Should  Switzerland  a  thousand  years  hence 
be  searched  by  geologists  they  would  find  under  the 
drift  now  forming  utensils  and  other  things  belong- 
ing to  the  present  day,  and  if  they  were  cut  off  from 
any  knowledge  of  the  intervening  centuries  the 
scientists  of  that  day,  if  affected  with  a  penchant  for 
great  chronological  stretches,  might  fling  the  present 
epoch  back  into  the  times  of  the  great  glaciers.  In 
short,  of  all  modes  of  computing  time,  this  seems  to  me 
the  most  liable  to  lead  to  error.  Yery  little  is  known 
of  the  period  which  reaches  from  the  beginning  of  the 
glacial  stage  to  the  dawn  of  history,  and  conclusions 
as  to  the  events  which  occurred,  and  especially  as  to 
their  distance  from  us,  must  be  received  with  the 
utmost  caution. 

But  should  there,  hereafter,  be  discovered  irrefra- 
gable proof  of  man's  existence  even  in  the  tertiary,  it 
would  prove  nothing  as  to  this  account,  since  it  is 
possible  that  there  may  have  been  earlier  and  now 
extinct  races.  This  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
neither  afifirms  nor  denies.  Elsewhere  in  the  Bible 
there  are  statements  which  look  as  if  there  were  other 


170  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

men  besides  the  children  of  Adam.  Here  I  leave  the 
subject,  remarking  only  that  tlms  far  the  geological 
evidence  of  a  pre-adamic  man  is  weak. 

"There  are,"  said  the  Professor,  "many  other  ob- 
jections which  have  been  urged  against  this  narrative, 
but  I  must  admit  I  know  of  none  which  is  entitled  to 
very  serious  consideration.     Dr.  Draper, 

Objection  37.       ,.  ,  ,  j  •  ^ 

lor  example,  says  that  according  to  cer- 
tain theologians  of  a  former  age  the  Bible  teaches  that 
the  earth  is  flat  and  immovable,  and  that  there  are 
no  antipodes.  It  is  very  clear  tliat  no  such  teaching 
is  found  in  this  chapter.  Close  adherence  to  the  text 
avoids  all  such  objections.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
would  it  not  lead  to  other  difficulties  ?  For  example, 
it  is  true  that  before  the  glacial  epoch  trees  '  bear- 
ing fruit  whose  seed  is  inside  of  it,'  became,  as  they 
are  still,  the  dominant  vegetation,  and  were  pro- 
nounced 'good' — that  is,  completed.  Bnt  certainly 
you  will  not  say  that  all  living  species  were 
'  brought  forth '  before  that  time.  Have  not  many 
species  appeared  since  ?  If  so,  does  not  that  contra- 
dict this  account  ? " 

I  am  not,  by  any  means,  assured  that  a  single  new 
sjDecies  has  appeared  since  the  glaciers;  but  if  new 
species  have  appeared  every  genus  dates  from  beyond 
that  time  of  ice. 

But  if  new  species  really  did  appear  after  the 
fifth  period  I  see    in  that  no   contradiction  of  this 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  171 

account.  All  it  says  is  that  the  earrli  in  tlio  third 
period  brought  forth  herbs  yielding  seed,  and  fruit- 
trees,  and  this  all  admit  to  be  true.  But  nothing  is 
said  as  to  its  then  bringing  forth  every  kind.  The 
diiiiculty,  if  any  there  be,  comes,  as  do  so  mauy 
otliers,  from  attributing  to  this  account  more  than 
the  writer  saw  lit  to  say. 

"Yes;  but  the  vegetation  was  pronounced  'good.' 
This  would  seem  to  forbid  the  idea  of  further  devel- 
opment." 

Was  not  that  flora  the  culmination  and  crowning 
glory  of  the  vegetable  kingdom  ?  Have  any  higher 
or  more  useful  types  appeared  since  the  end  of  the 
tertiary  ?  And,  if  not,  I  see  no  contradiction,  though 
some  varieties,  or  even  some  species,  were  added  after- 
ward. Indeed,  if  1  may  refer  to  the  second  chapter,  we 
have  positive  proof  of  a  subsequent  production  of  trees 
pleasant  to  the  sight  and  good  for  food.  Whether  any 
of  them  were  new  species  or  not  we  are  not  told. 

"  This  is  not  the  Genesis  which  I  have  read  about. 
It  is  not  the  Genesis  of  commentators.     It 

Objection  38. 

is  not  the  Genesis  in  which  all  the  world 
has  believed  these  many  centuries." 

Perhaps  not,  I  said  ;  but  to  us  the  question  is.  Is 
this  the  Genesis  of  our  Bibles  ?  That  it  differs  from 
what  the  world  has  believed  is  to  yon,  who  have 
thrown  off  the  yoke  of  authority,  a  matter  of  little 
importance. 


172  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

The  present  reading  of  the  sky  and  of  the  earth's 
crust  differs  widely  from  that  adopted  by  "  scientists  " 
for  these  many  centuries,  and  held  by  them,  too,  with 
such  earnestness  tliat  they  wrenched  this  chapter  from 
its  proper  meaning  to  conipel  it  to  support  their  phi- 
losophy. Armed  with  the  civil  authority,  they  im- 
prisoned and  burned  those  who  dared  to  say  what  all 
the  world  now  knows  to  be  the  truth.  Galileo, 
Bruno,  and  others  were  martyrs,  not  to  this  story  of  cro- 
arion,  but  to  the  opinionated  pseudo-scientists  of  those 
days.  And  now  there  are  those  who  ought  to  know 
better,  that  write  the  history  of  the  struggle  l)etween 
the  new  ideas  and  the  old,  and  style  it  a  history  of 
the  conflict  between  religion  {?)  and  science,  in  which 
they  charge  all  the  cruelty  and  falsehood  upon  the 
book  which  for  nearly  four  thousand  years  has  per- 
sisted in  telling  the  truth  about  our  earth,  waiting 
through  the  centuries,  like  the  stars  and  the  rocks,  in 
infinite  jwtience,  for  a  science  that  could  compre- 
hend it. 

The  world  would  have  been  greatly  the  gainer 
had  writers  on  both  sides  approached  this  narrative  in 
a  more  docile  spirit.  Attempts  to  explain  it  should 
have  been  made  with  child-like  willingness  to  be 
taught,  and  with  readiness  to  confess  ignorance  and 
to  wait  for  greater  knowledge.  I  may  add,  too,  that 
a, belief  in  the  Bible  for  reasons  independent  of  this 
chapter  ought  to  have  made  its  friends  less  timorous 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  173 

in  reference  to  the  assaults  of  "  science ; "  and  less 
ready  to  devise  crude  theories,  often  the  laughing- 
stock of  men  better  informed,  which  should  remove 
the  special  difficulty  in  hand,  but  which  too  often  led 
to  others  that  were  worse. 

"What!  would  you  have  mankind  passively  accept 
this  account  without  examination  or  criticism,  as  a 
child  accepts  the  tales  of  the  nursery  ?  " 

Certainl}^  not.  I  M-ould  have  them  bring  to  it  all 
their  knowledge,  examine  it  most  carefully,  and  ap- 
ply to  it  their  best  powers  of  criticism ;  but  they 
should  be  just  to  it,  and  try  it,  not  by  what  othei's 
may  have  said  it  says,  not  by  what  they  think  it 
ought  to  say,  but  by  its  own  words. 

"I  see,"  said  the  Professor,  "no  objection  to  this ; 
but  I  am  perplexed  that  so  many  writers — mostly  of 
very  recent  date — have  said  that  this  chapter  was  only 
a  hymn  of  creation,  a  series  of  poetical  images,  having 
no  counterpart  in  the  world's  actual  history." 

I  do.  not  think  it  necessary  to  show  how  such 
ideas  have  arisen.  It  is  enough  for  me  now  that  this 
account  agrees  so  wonderfully  with  the  facts  of  our 
world's  early  history,  and  especially  that  its  many 
statements  happen  (?)  to  be  arranged  exactly  right. 

But  another  cpiestion  of  far-reaching  importance 
arises,  Whence  did  Moses  get  the  knowledge  needed 
for  making  such  a  cosmogony? 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply,  and  fur  some 


174  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

moments  he  sat  silent.  lie  had  often  spoken  of  the 
great  ignorance  of  tliose  early  ages,  and  one  of  his 
favorite  themes  had  been  the  progress  of  man  from  a 
brnte  to  a  savage,  and  from  a  savage,  through  many 
intermediate  grades,  to  his  present  position.  At  last 
lie  said : 

"  What  do  you  think  of  this  account?  Do  you  sup- 
pose Moses  knew  all  about  the  matters  of  which  he 
wrote ! " 

I  have  repeatedly  said  that  I  very  much  doubt  his 
understanding  fully  what  he  wrote,  and  I  may  add 
that  1  am  far  from  believing  that  the  wisest  of  us 
have  yet  drawn  from  it  all  its  stores  of  meaning. 
These  statements  of  his  are  descriptions  of  events  or 
phenomena  in  language  brief  but  exact,  and  the  value 
of  such  is  not  easily  estimated.  A  child  can  draw 
from  them  instruction  ;  the  wisest  man  cannot  exhaust 
them.  The  value  of  exact  descriptions  can  be  seen 
in  every  department  of  science.  The  photographs 
taken  of  the  last  transit  of  Yenus  are  purely  phe- 
nomenal. Any  child  who  sees  them  can  readily  grasp 
the  fact  that  the  little  round  black  spot  on  the  photo- 
graph of  the  sun's  disk  marks  the  position  of  the  planet. 
This  spot  he  can  see  as  readily  as  the  astronomer ;  but 
here  the  equality  ends.  The  full  meaning  of  the 
pictures  can  be  dug  out  only  after  months  of  study  by 
men  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  such  work.  Nor 
can  even  they  make  much  progressunlessfurnislied  with 


OUR  SEVENTH  EVENING.  175 

every  aid  of  modern  science,  the  most  refined  analysis, 
and  the  most  careful  microscopic  measurements.  And 
when  they  have  exhausted  their  ingenuity  and  ceased 
from  their  work,  the  negatives — the  prints  are  not 
accurate  enough  for  such  purposes — will  be  preserved 
with  the  utmost  care,  because  every  physicist  has 
lurking  in  his  bosom  the  conviction  that  some  sugges- 
tion, or  some  discovery,  may  throw  unexpected  liglit 
U]3on  them  and  reveal  unthought-of  truths. 

This  account  is  a  series  of  such  pictures,  not,  of 
course,  on  glass,  but  in  words,  and  it  is  only  very 
lately  that  science  has  made  sufficient  advances  to 
have  any  adequate  idea  of  its  importance. 

"  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  God  intended  the  Bible 
to  teach  science  ?  I  thought  that  had  been  ruled  out 
long  ago." 

No,  I  said ;  nor  did  he  make  the  stars  to  teach 
astronomy;  nor  light  to  teach  optics ;  but,  for  all  that, 
in  them,  potentially  at  least,  are  those  sciences.  I  do 
not  believe  that  science  can  be  learned  from  the  Bible 
any  more  than  history  can  be  learned  from  the  proph- 
ecies ;  but  as  in  the  latter  we  learn  their  true  meaning 
from  the  history  which  records  their  fulfillment,  so 
the  science  which  gives  us  so  many  facts  about  crea- 
tion enables  us  to  know  what  is  the  true  meaning  of 
those  brief  descriptions  which  make  up  this  nar- 
rative. 

That  our  greater  knowledge  has  changed  our  views 
13 


176  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

in  this  matter  was  not  only  to  be  expected,  but  the 
contrary  is  inconceivable.  It  would  be  impossible  for 
an  ignorant  person  and  a  j^liilosopher  to  regard  natural 
phenomena  alike,  and  equally  impossible  to  read,  in 
the  same  sense,  a  description  of  them.  Moreover,  the 
divergence  in  their  views  will  be  wider  in  proportion 
as  the  ignorant  man  is  sure  he  understands  it  all. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  similar  changes  of 
opinion  have  occurred  from  the  same  cause — increased 
knowledge — in  reference  to  other  ancient  books.  To 
Herodotus,  once  contemptuously  styled  the  father  of 
lies,  has  now  been  restored  his  well-earned  title  of  the 
father  of  history. 

"  I  must  think  these  matters  over.  Opinions  so 
long  lield — not  so  much  as  capable  of  proof,  but  as 
too  nearly  self-evident  to  require  proof — are  not  to 
be  given  up,  and  their  opposites  substituted,  without 
a  mental  wrench  that  leaves  one  sore  and  half  dazed. 
If  what  you  claim  be  true — that  this  so-called  myth 
is  the  most  literal  and  chronological  document  conceiv- 
able— it  is  a  matter  of  great  importance.  It  amiihi- 
lates  a  whole  literature,  for  what  is  tlie  value  of  all 
the  books — their  name  is  legion — to  prove  miracles 
impossible  if  here  is  a  miracle  which  every  man  can 
examine  for  himself  ?  " 

The  striking  of  the  clock  reminded  the  Professor 
of  the  lateness  of  the  hour ;  so,  stopping  somewhat 
abruptly,  he  bade  me  good-night. 


0  UR  SE  VENTH  E  VENING.  177 

I  said  above,  in  the  heat  of  conversation,  "  I  do  not 
believe  science  can  be  learned  from  the  Bible." 
Further  reflection  induces  me  to  question  this.  The 
Bible  gives  us  facts  in  many  departments  of  knowl- 
edge, and  by  the  study  of  these,  co-ordinating  them 
with  each  other  and  with  all  that  can  be  gathered 
from  other  sources,  I  liave  no  doubt  science  may 
be  advanced.  All  admit  this  in  archseology,  ethnog- 
raphy, history,  and  geography ;  I  think  it  will  be 
found,  when  men  shall  study  this  book  in  the  proper 
spirit,  that  it  has  unsuspected  treasures  in  other  de- 
partments of  knowledge.  For  every  one  must  agree 
with  Dr.  Draper  when  he  says  a  revealed  cosmogony 
must  give  foreshowings  of  discoveries  that  should  be 
made  long  after — say,  now,  or  at  some  future  day. 


nS  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


OUR   EIGHTH    EVENING. 


THE    VERDICT    "  GOOD." 

The  Professor  opened  the  discussion : 

"  You  have  spoken  several  times  of  the  verdict 
'  good  '  whicli  is  so  often  used  in  this  chapter.  Why 
is  it  sometimes  omitted  ? " 

As  I  have  said,  good,  applied  to  things  without 
moral  character,  means  oidj  completeness,  or  fitness 
for  intended  use.  Its  omission,  therefore,  indicates 
incompletion.  Were  some  things  fully  finished,  and 
others  left  incomplete,  when  the  story  passes  on  to  the 
next  stage  ?  Discoveries  in  modern  physics  now  en- 
able us  to  answer.  Astronomy,  spectroscopy,  chem- 
istry, and  paleontology  has  each  contributed  an  impor- 
tant part  to  the  solution  of  this  question. 

The  first  and  most  important  thing  recorded  is  the 
creation  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth.  They  are  not 
pronounced  good,  and  modern  astronomy  has  discov- 
ered that  at  first,  and  long  afterward,  they  were  not 
good ;  for,  originally,  the  heavens  and  earth  were  in  a 
gas-like  condition,  almost  infinitely  attenuated  and 
diffused.  The  nebulous  matter  needed  to  be  gathered 
into  sun  and  planets,  and  wrought,  through  innumer- 


OUR  EIGHTH  EVENING.  179 

able  a^es,  into  manifold  forms  and  combinations,  be- 
fore it  was  good  for  man  or  even  for  plants  and 
animals. 

The  mysterious  moving  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  in- 
finite in  importance,  is  also  not  pronounced  good,  prob- 
ably because  it  was  not  a  completion,  but  rather  an  act 
whose  effects  were  to  be  felt  to  the  close  of  creation. 

Light,  however  long  the  time  from  its  imperfect 
beginnings  in  the  nebulous  stage  to  such  as  we  now 
enjoy,  became  perfected  befc^re  the  earth  had  an 
opaque  body,  and  thus  divided  between  the  light  and 
darkness,  causing  day  and  night  to  begin.  Accord- 
ingly, the  verdict  "  good  "  precedes  that  division. 

The  light  was  called  day  and  the  darkness  night, 
but  day  and  night  are  not  called  "  good."  Nor  wei'e 
they  complete,  for  the  earth's  axis,  not  having  then  its 
present  obliquity,  the  present  charming  variety  from 
unequal  days  and  nights  and  from  changing  seasons 
was  yet  lacking.  Not  till  the  fourth  period  are  the 
days  and  seasons  and  other  measures  of  time  pro- 
nounced good. 

The  expanse  (the  rahia)  was  not  pronounced  good, 
for  in  that  early  period,  before  the  land  appeared,  it 
was  foul  with  poisonous  gases.     It  was  not  good. 

The  land  and  sea  are  pronounced  good  because, 
as  to  all  that  affects  the  present  population  of  plants 
and  animals — extent  and  arrangement,  quality  of  soil, 
and  of  ocean  waters — they  were  finished. 


180  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

The  vegetable  world  became  fitted  for  its  highest 
uses  when  grass,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees  whose  seed  is 
in  the  fruit  appeared. 

The  arrangement  as  to  the  two  great  lights,  what- 
ever it  was,  was  final  and  adapted  to  the  present  ani- 
mal population,  and,  therefore,  is  rightly  pronounced 
"  good." 

As  to  water  creatures  and  fowl,  and,  later  yet,  cat- 
tle, beasts,  and  other  living  things,  they  crowned  the 
brute  creation  ;  nothing  better  fitted  has  been  imag- 
ined. As,  therefore,  fitted  for  the  final  purpose,  they, 
too,  are  styled  "good." 

When  man  appeared,  the  creation,  as  a  material 
creation,  was  completed.  As  an  instrument  to  be 
used  for  its  intended  purposes  it  was  handed  over  to 
the  father  of  our  race.  Formless  matter  had  become 
reduced  to  form  and  solidity.  Force,  from  a  simple 
centerward  impulse,  had  developed  heat,  light,  chem- 
ical affinity,  and  electricity ;  and  these  had  been  so 
tamed  down  that  they  were  ready  for  the  service  of 
man.  The  gaseous  nebula  had  become  solid  earth  ; 
the  black  scoriae  of  its  first  surface  had  become  soil 
full  of  potentialities  ;  the  foul  mixture  of  gases  that 
once  surrounded  the  earth  had  stored  its  poison  be- 
neath the  rocks  in  beds  of  coal ;  and  there  remained 
only  the  life-giving  atmosphere.  The  monotonous 
sameness  of  the  preglacial  world  had  been  succeeded 
by  tlie  pi-esent  variety  induced  by  changing  seasons  ; 


OUR  EIGHTH  EVENING.  181 

the  universal  ocean  had  given  place  to  the  present 
arrangement  of  land  and  water,  with  continents  and 
seas,  mountains  and  valleys,  lakes  and  rivers ;  the 
waters  had  been  purified  from  their  excessive  amount 
of  silica  and  lime  ;  the  almost  structureless  sea-weed, 
once  the  onl}^  vegetation,  had  been  followed  by  an 
ever-increasing  breadth  of  development  and  compli- 
cation of  structure  until  plant  life  culminated  in  the 
highest  and  most  useful  orders,  the  angiosperms  and 
palms.  Brute  forms,  starting  in  the  microscopic  pro- 
tozoa, had  reached  their  highest  point  in  living  ver- 
tebrates. 

Light,  land,  and  sea,  plants,  climate,  water  animals 
and  land  animals,  each  received  a  separate  verdict  of 
"  good  ;  "  but  as  to  man,  separately,  that  was  not  said. 
So  far  as  the  earth  and  its  purpose  were  concerned  all 
was  completed.  As  a  wdiole  it  received  the  divine 
approval  in  liigher  terms  than  before  ;  parts  separately 
had  been  "good,"  but,  conjoined  into  one  harmonious 
whole,  those  which  at  first  did  not  receive  the  meed 
of  "  good,"  being  now  finished  and  fitted  to  their 
place,  and  man,  its  crowning  glory,  added,  "  God  saw 
all " — the  tout  ensemble — "  that  he  had  made,  and,  be- 
hold, it  was  very  good."  God,  henceforth,  ceased  to 
create  and  make  for  our  planet.  It  was  finished  and 
ready  for  its  mission.  But  man  w^as  not  pronounced 
"  good."  On  that  sixth  day,  which  witnessed  the 
highest  reach  of  all  else  of  God's  creation,  man  merely 


182  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

be2;an  to  be.  His  culmination,  and  only  his,  lay,  and 
still  lies,  in  the  far  future. 

The  Professor's  only  reply  was,  "  This  is  a  most 
curious  chapter." 

JS^othing  more  was  said  that  evening  that  I  care 
to  repeat.  We  were  interrupted  by  visitors,  and  did 
not  take  up  any  new  matter. 

A  friend  who  read  the  above  in  manuscript  wrote 
me  in  reference  to  it  as  follows.  The  reader  will 
notice  that  he  does  not  question  my  exegesis  of  the 
phrase,  "  God  saw  that  it  was  good,"  but  he  is 
shocked  at  my  saying  that  man,  the  sinless  man  of 
Eden,  was  not  pronounced  good. 

"  Does  not  '  every  thing '  include  man  ?  Is  it  not 
straining  a  point  to  say  that  man  was  not  pronounced 
good  ?  In  his  first  estate  he  was  made  in  the  image 
of  God.  How  could  he  be  better  ?  He  might  not 
remain  '  good,'  but  he  was  good — perfect  so  far  as 
creation  could  make  him." 

My  friend  does  not  quite  see  my  meaning.  "  Good," 
as  used  in  this  chapter,  has  no  reference  to  moral 
quality,  since  that  can  be  predicated  of  nothing  which 
preceded  Adam.  It  implies  only  completeness,  or 
culmination,  or  fitness  for  the  intended  use.  That 
this  epithet  is  not  applied  to  man  at  all,  and  that 
the  verdict  "very  good"  is  applied  not  to  him 
separately,  but  in  connection  with  all  that  God  had 
made,  is  a  matter  to  be  decided,  not  by  our   tradi- 


OUR  EIGHTH  EVENING.  183 

tional  beliefs,  but  by  the  evidence  of  the  narrative 
itself. 

The  following  from  Professor  Dana  is  very  appi'o- 
priate  in  this  connection.  It  sets  forth,  from  the 
stand-point  of  a  man  most  eminent  in  science,  the 
contrast  between  man  and  the  rest  of  creation  in  i-ef- 
erence  to  further  development : 

"  Man  was  the  first  being  that  was  not  finished  on 
reaching  adult  growth,  but  was  provided  with  powers 
for  infinite  expansion,  a  will  for  a  life  of  w^ork,  and 
boundless  aspirations  to  lead  to  endless  improvement. 
He  was  the  first  being  capable  of  an  intelligent  sur- 
vey of  nature  and  comprehension  of  her  laws  ;  the 
first  capable  of  augmenting  his  strength  by  bending 
nature  to  his  service,  rendering  thereby  a  weak  body 
stronger  than  all  possible  animal  force  ;  the  first  capa- 
ble of  deriving  happiness  from  truth  and  goodness  ; 
of  apprehending  eternal  right ;  of  reaching  toward  a 
knowledge  of  self  and  God  ;  the  first,  therefore,  capa- 
ble of  conscious  obedience  or  disobedience  of  a  moral 
law,  and  the  first  subject  to  debasement  through  his 
appetites  and  a  moral  nature. 

"  There  is,  then,  in  man  a  spiritual  element  in 
which  the  brute  has  no  share.  His  power  of  infinite 
progress,  his  thoughts  and  desires  that  reach  onward, 
even  beyond  time,  his  recognition  of  spiritual  exist- 
ence and  of  a  Divinity  above,  all  evince  a  nature  that 
partakes  of  the  infinite  and  divine.  .  .  .  Unlike  other 


184  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

species,  he,  tlirough  his  spiritual  nature,  is  far  more 
intimatelj  connected  with  the  opening  future." 

Tlie  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  are,  that  this 
hfe  is  not  a  finality,  but,  on  the  contrary,  only  a  be- 
ginning of  eternal  progress.  In  the  sense  of  this  chap- 
ter there  is  none  good  but  God.  He  alone  of  spiritual 
existences  is  complete,  lias  no  further  heights  to  at- 
tain, knows  no  possibility  of  progress.  Paradoxical 
as  it  may  appear,  it  is  in  this  incompleteness  that  man 
differs  from  all  the  brute  creation,  and  in  this  is  his 
highest  glory. 

In  the  course  of  our  conversation  the  Professor 
jotted  down  the  following  compact  statement  show- 
ing the  use  and -the  omission  of  "good "all  through 
the  account : 

Omitted  after  creation  of  heaven  and  earth. 

Omitted  after  the  impai"ting  of  force  or  motion  by 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

Used  after  light  was  caused  to  be. 

Omitted  after  tlie  division  between  light  and  dark- 
ness. 

Omitted  after  making  the  "  firmament." 

Used  after  the  dry  land  and  seas  were  arranged. 

Used  aftergrass,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees  appeared. 

Used  after  the  lights  were  to  be  for  seasons,  etc. 

Used  after  water  animals  and  birds. 

Used  after  land  animals. 

Omitted  after  man. 


OUR  EIGHTH  EVENING.  185 

Omitted  after  the  five  most  important  statements, 
and  used  after  only  six.  The  omissions  are  mostly  in 
the  first,  or  preliminary,  part  of  the  account ;  the  use 
of  "  good  "  is  chiefly  in  the  latter,  or  final,  stages  of 
the  story.  In  the  light  of  present  knowledge  of 
world-making  this  was  to  be  expected. 


186  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING. 


THE  DAYS THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT — SIX  STAGES  OF 

DEVELOPMENT WHAT  THIS   CHAPTER  IS MY  WAY    OF 

STUDYING  IT — WHY  IT  WAS  GIVEN "  A  HYMN  OF  CRE- 
ATION " HOW  IT  WAS   GIVEN A  RESUME. 

After  welcoming  the  Professor  we  began  at  once 
upon  our  theme. 

"  What,"  said  the  Professor,  "  about  the  days  ?  Most 
persons  think  they  present  the  most  difficult  problem 
in  the  whole  matter."  He  would  like  to  hear  my  ex- 
planation more  fully  than  I  had  yet  given  it.  He 
had  read  several  theories ;  what  did  I  think  of  them  ? 

All  the  theories,  I  replied,  may  be  reduced  to  two  ; 
"  the  days  were  common,  consecutive  days  ;  "  "they 
were  periods  of  unknown  length."  Until  recently 
there  was  no  question  but  that  the  first  was  the  ex- 
plicit teaching  of  the  story  as  well  as  of  the  fourth 
commandment.  So  long  as  it  was  a  matter  of  power 
only  the  shortness  of  the  time  presented  no  difficulty. 
But  when  it  was  found  that  layers  of  rock  many  thou- 
sand feet  thick  were  filled  with  myriads  of  extinct 
plants  and  animals  following  one  another  in  successive 
"  populations  "  this  theory  was  seen  to  involve  a  ques- 
tion of  divine  veracity.     Either  these  forms,  with  all 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  187 

their  organs  for  digesting  their  food  and  for  reproduc- 
ing their  kind,  were  counterfeits,  made  for  no  purpose 
but  to  deceive,  or  the  world  liad  been  in  existence  an 
enormous  time.  To  break  the  force  of  this  there  was 
devised  a  modification  of  tlie  theory. 

Yes,  it  was  said,  it  is  true ;  God  made  all  things  in 
six  consecutive  days,  common  days,  and  it  is  also  true 
that  the  world  has  existed  for  perhaps  millions  of 
years,  and  they  explained  the  apparent  discrepancy 
thns :  After  God  had  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  there  was  between  that  act  and  the  conditions 
described  in  the  next  sentence  a  stretch  of  time  of 
whose  duration  no  hint  is  given,  but  which  was  long 
enough  for  all  the  demands  of  geology.  In  this  in- 
terval lived  the  plants  and  animals  whose  remains  are 
found  in  the  rocks  ;  and  here  took  place  the  degradation 
of  mountains  and  the  erosion  of  valleys  which  now 
excite  our  astonishment.  At  last,  for  some  unrevealed 
reason,  the  world  was  destroyed.  All  life  went  oat, 
a  pall  of  thick  darkness  covered  the  earth,  and  the 
seas  overwhelmed  the  land.  After  a  time,  we  know 
not  how  long,  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters,  the  clouds  began  to  break  away,  and 
there  was  light,  good  indeed,  but  mingled  with  dark- 
ness; then  God  separated  between  the  light  and  the 
darkness  ;  called  the  light  day  and  the  darkness  night. 
Tlien  darkness  came  down  again  and  there  was  even- 
ing.    Twelve  hours  later,  the  night  having  passed. 


188  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

the  light  began  to  re-appear  and  tliere  was  morning. 
On  the  next  day  the  expanse  was  formed.  Again 
the  day  waned,  and  it  was  evening.  The  night  came 
on.  A  few  hours  more  and  there  was  morning,  and 
that  was  the  second  day.  With  returning  light  be- 
gan the  third  day.  It  opened  on  a  dead  world  buried 
in  a  shoreless  ocean.  The  divine  word  went  forth, 
and  at  once  the  fifty  million  square  miles  of  land 
rose  from  beneath  the  waters.  How  such  a  mass  of 
water  could  run  off  in  a  few  hours  without  a  yet 
greater  miracle  the  advocates  of  this  theory  do  not 
say.  But  it  was  done.  Then,  say  at  noon,  all  kinds 
of  plants  came  up.  That  such  plants  might  live  re- 
quired a  miraculous  removal  of  the  salt  from  what 
had  been  that  morning  an  ocean  bottom.  But  it  was 
done,  and  that  very  afternoon  grasses,  herbs,  and 
fruit-trees,  to  which  salt  was  a  deadly  poison,  abounded. 
Again  the  light  grew  dim  and  evening  came.  Night 
followed  and  rest,  for  a  few  hours,  and  then  came  the 
morning,  and  this  ended  the  third  day.  Three  times 
again  did  the  divine  command  go  forth,  and  all  was 
done. 

This  theory  requires  so  much  destroying  and  re- 
creating— not  one  quarter  of  the  difficulties  have  been 
mentioned — such  a  heaping  of  miracles  upon  miracles, 
that  few  now  accept  it. 

Dr.  Pye  Smith  offered  an  amendment.  He  thinks 
that  Genesis  refers  merely  to  a  local  creation  in  west- 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  189 

ern  Asia.  Tins,  if  possible,  is  still  more  unsatisfac- 
tory. 

The  theory  whicli  regards  the  "days"  as  periods 
finds  most  favor  with  those  who  have  enough  knowl- 
edge of  geology  to  appreciate  the  difficulties  of  the 
six  consecutive  days.  Some,  however,  find  themselves 
perplexed  because  the  fourth  connnandment  seems  to 
support  the  belief  that  the  "  days "  were  common 
days.  A  careful  study  of  the  decalogue  will,  I  think, 
relieve  their  minds. 

In  reading  the  commandments  one  is  struck  with 
a  certain  peculiarity  running  through  them  all.  It 
consists  in  the  frequent  use  of  that  figure  of  speech 
called  synecdoche — that  is,  putting  a  part  for  the 
whole.  Thus  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill"  names  but  one 
crime,  but  forbids  all  offenses  against  the  person. 
"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  "  names  only  one  act, 
but  forbids  all  impurity.  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal "  for- 
bids not  theft  alone,  but  all  dishonesty.  And  so  I 
niiglit  go  through  the  list ;  every-where  a  single  act 
is  mentioned  while  a  whole  series  is  meant.  In  the 
same  way  six  days  stand  for  six  stretches  of  time. 
The  word  "  days"  evidently  is  figurative  in  the  fourth 
commandment,  and  I  see  no  insurmountable  objec- 
tion to  regarding  it  as  figurative  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis.  But  such  a  meaning  appears  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  intense  liternlism  that  pervades  the 
account.     For  this  reason,  and  because  I  thus  follow 


190  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

more  closely  the  exact  statements  of  the  writer,  I 
prefer  to  regard  tlie  days  as  common  days  which  serve 
to  mark  the  end  of  the  creative  periods. 

Perhaps  a  homely  illustration  may  help  make  the 
matter  clearer.  Suppose  I  wished  to  make  for  my 
child  a  brief  epitome  of  our  country's  history,  and, 
furthermore,  that  I  had  no  system  of  chronology, 
yet  wished  to  impress  upon  him  the  order.  I  might 
number  the  days  on  which  certain  important  events 
occurred,  or  which  served  to  mark  the  end  of  one 
stage  and  the  beginning  of  the  next,  somewhat  as 
follows : 

The  Indians,  undisturbed  and  unheard  of,  held 
America  till  Columbus  discovered  it,  on  day  the 
first. 

Only  Spaniards  and  French  sought  to  make  settle- 
ment till  Jamestown  was  founded,  on  day  the  second. 

There  was  strife  between  English  and  French  until 
Quebec  was  taken,  on  day  the  third. 

Our  people  remained  subject  to  England  till  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  on  day  the  fourth. 

There  was  a  time  of  weakness  and  disorder  till 
the  present  Constitution  was  adopted,  on  day  the  fifth. 

There  was  struggle  between  liberty  and  slavery  till 
Lee  surrendered,  on  day  the  sixth. 

Here  is  a  series  of  days  separating  important  stages 
in  the  history  of  our  country.  There  would  be  no 
impropriety  in   my  afterward    saying  that  in  some 


0  UR  NINTH  E  VENING.  191 

relation  to  this  hexad  of  days  ("  six  of  days  ")  *  God, 
in  his  providence,  built  up  this  nation.  And  as  these 
days  differed  in  no  respect  from  others,  neither  did 
those  of  Genesis.  The  former  divide  onr  liistory 
into  periods  of  whose  length  my  little  epitome  gives 
no  intimation,  and  the  latter  do  the  same  for  the 
early  history  of  the  world. 

"  You  speak,"  said  the  Professor,  "  of  six  divisions, 
or  stages,  in  the  world's  history.  I  have  always  un- 
derstood that  snch  divisions  conld  not  be  made  with- 
out clashing  with  modern  science.  Can  six  sections 
be  made  that  do  not  run  into  each  other  ? " 

I  replied  that  as  to  the  first  three  periods  enough 
was  known  to  show  that  the  demarkation  between 
them  is  sharp  and  distinct.  As  to  the  fourth,  the 
line  is  sharp,  although  as  to  what  then  occurred 
scientists  are  as  yet  in  doubt.  Between  the  fifth  and 
sixth  periods  the  line,  although  not  sharply  drawn,  is 
tolerably  distinct.  I  would  give  the  divisions  as 
follows : 

1.  The  first  stage — astronomers  would  call  it  the 
Nebulous — begins  at  the  "  beginning."  It  includes  the 
creation  of  matter,  the  imparting  of  motion,  the  pro- 
duction of  light,  and  the  reduction  of  the  temperature 
of  the  earth's  crust  to  a  point  at  which  it  ceased  to 
emit  light.     It  ends  at  the  first  day  and  night  on  our 

*  In  tlie  Hebrew  it  is  "  a  six  of  daj's,"  that  is,  "  a  hexad  of  days." 
The  preposition  in  is  not  in  the  original. 
13 


192  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

planet.  Here  the  line  is  well  drawn,  for  since  that 
first  day  and  night  there  has  been  no  creation  of  matter 
or  of  force,  and  no  change  in  the  quality  of  the  light. 

2.  The  next  stage  commenced  after  day  and  night 
had  begun — that  is,  after  the  end  of  the  first  stage. 
Its  work  was  the  condensation  and  deposition  of  the 
vapors  due  to  the  yet  hot  earth,  and  the  consequent 
clearing  of  the  atmosphere.  It  ended  when  the  air 
becam.e  so  clear  that  the  expanse  could  be  called 
"  heaven,"  and  in  it  the  heavenly  bodies  be  seen. 

This  stage  does  not  lap  either  way,  for  its  work 
could  not  have  gone  on  before  the  "  first  day,"  because 
the  earth  was  then  too  hot,  and,  once  done,  it  has  never 
needed  to  be  repeated. 

Geology  styles  this  the  Azoic  age,  or,  as  to  the  lat- 
ter part  of  it,  the  Archaean.  It  might  be  called  the 
Pluvial  stage. 

3.  The  work  of  the  third  stage  was  the  elevation 
of  the  land  above  the  seas,  the  purification  of  the  wa- 
ters, the  preparation  of  the  soil,  and  the  production 
of  grasses,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees. 

This  stage  did  not  begin  (could  not  begin)  till 
after  the  previous  one  was  ended  ;  and  it  was  ended, 
so  geologists  say,  before  the  close  of  the  tertiary. 

In  its  time-limits  it  reaches  from  the  earliest 
archsean  to  the  time  just  before  the  glaciers.  Since 
then  nothing  of  importance  lias  been  done  in  either 
direction.     There  was  no  lapping  on  to  the  next. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  193 

4.  The  fourth  stage  witnessed  the  introduction  of 
the  modern  type  of  climate,  with  seasons  and  unequal 
days  and  nights.  No  such  type  existed  before  the 
pliocene.  Then  came  the  glacial  epocli.  Since  that 
time  no  change  in  reference  to  seasons  and  unequal 
days  and  nights  has  occurred. 

5.  The  fifth  stage  witnessed  the  production  of  living 
species  of  water  creatures  (fish  and  other  vertebi'ates) 
and  fowl.  Whatever  may  have  come  down  from  the 
earlier  days,  there  M^as  addition  of  now  living  species 
after  that  climatic  change.  This,  which  corresponds 
to  the  quaternary  period,  is  a  well-defined  epoch  of 
development  of  present  marine  vertebrate  animals 
and  of  present  birds.  So  far  as  science  knows,  none 
have  been  added  since. 

6.  The  sixth  stage  is  equivalent  to  tlie  recent  pe- 
riod, and  comes  down  to  the  time  of  Adam.  It  wit- 
nessed the  production  of  present  cattle,  beasts,  and 
other  land  creatures.  According  to  Professor  Dana, 
almost  none  of  tliese  go  back  into  the  Champlain 
period.* 

The  Professor  made  no  reply  to  this  except  to  re- 
mark that  tlie  geological  record  since  the  pliocene  was 
so  unsatisfactoiy  he  had  very  gi-eat  doubt  whether 
we  could  at  present  draw  a  line  between  the  last  two 
periods.      Science   shows    the   existence  of  a  pretty 

*  "  The  mammals  of  tlie  quaternary  are  nearly  all  extinct." — Man- 
ual of  Geolofjy,  p.  563. 


194  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

well-defined  demarkation  between  the  land  fauna  of 
the  quaternary  and  that  of  to-day.  This  is  as  far,  per- 
liaps,  as  we  can  at  present  venture  to  speak  with  any 
positiveness. 

The  Professor  sat  a  few  moments  in  silence,  and 
then  said :  "  This  is  a  very  different  document  from 
what  I  have  always  supposed.  But  old  beliefs  are 
not  easily  thrown  off,  and  I  can  hardly  say  that  I  ac- 
cept it  as  true.  The  argument  seems  conclusive,  but 
I  am  dazed  by  the  greatness  of  the  results  if  it  be 
actually  true.  It  is  too  great  to  be  believed,  1  do 
not  wish  to  argue  to-night,  but  only  to  listen.  Tell 
me  just  how  this  story  looks  to  you.  What  is  it? 
How  did  you  come  to  view  it  as  you  do  ?  I  shall 
wish  to  ask  other  questions,  but  please  answer  these 
first." 

Whatever  I  can  say  is  liable  to  imperfection  and 
error,  for  my  knowledge  is  very  limited.  If,  upon 
more  thorough  examination,  defects  shall  be  found  in 
my  exposition,  you  must  not,  therefore,  draw  conclu- 
sions unfavorable  to  the  truth  of  this  narrative.  Too 
many  real  correspondences  have  been  pointed  out  be- 
tween it  and  what  scientists  have  claimed  as  their  dis- 
coveries to  permit  it  to  be  lightly  regarded.  I  know, 
too — no  one  can  be  more  sensible  of  it  than  I — that 
its  depths  have  not  all  been  sounded,  nor  all  its 
heights  been  scaled.  Others,  with  greater  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  and  with  the  hel])  of  a  more  advanced 


0  UR  NINTH  E  VENING.  1 95 

science,  will  find  treasures  beyond  my  reach.  Of 
some,  even  now,  I  catch  tantalizing  glimpses.  And 
then,  too,  the  discussion  of  the  three  last  periods  lacks 
that  full  and  satisfactory  character  which  can  come 
only  when  geologists  have  given  us — if  that  shall  ever 
be  possible — a  full  and  connected  account  of  what 
took  place  between  the  end  of  the  pliocene  and  the 
beginning  of  history.  At  present,  amid  abundant 
assertions,  our  knowledge  is  very  meager,  both  as  to 
the  things  done  and  their  causes. 

You  ask  me  how  I  look  upon  this  chapter.  To 
me  it  appears  to  be  a  series  of  statements,  each  setting 
forth  an  event,  or  condition,  or  transaction,  in  the 
world's  early  history.  These  I  find  placed  one  after 
the  other  in  the  true  order,  but  with  no  intimation  of 
the  vast  intervals  of  time  by  which  they  are  sepa- 
rated. As,  when  we  look  at  the  stars,  they  all  seem 
equally  distant,  and  we  learn  better  only  from  the 
teachings  of  astronomy,  so  to  the  ordinary  reader  all 
these  transactions  seem  equally  distant  until  a  greater 
acquaintance  with  the  past  teaches  him  better. 

Of  some  things,  as  light,  matter,  and  motion,  the 
writer  speaks  of  their  beginnings,  while  as  to  others 
he  records  only  their  completion.  Of  plants  he 
speaks  only  of  the  latest  and  most  useful  kinds  ;  of 
animals  he  confines  himself  to  living  species.  Not  a 
few  of  his  statements  are  of  such  a  character  that  on 
their  truth  depends  the  very  existence  of  whole  de- 


196  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

partments  of  modern  science.  Nor  is  their  great 
value  nor  tlieir  order  a  matter  of  accident.  For  the 
number  of  these  statements  compels  the  belief  that 
they  were  designed.  With  a  slight  verV)al  change, 
making  diametrically  opposite  sense,  I  adopt  the 
words  of  one  to  whom  I  owe  so  mucli,^  "  The  Mosaic 
story  is  the  work  of  a  profound  intellect  versed  in  all 
the  depths  of  science  which  the  future  was  to  reveal," 
if  indeed  it  be  not  the  perfection  of  irony  to  speak 
of  the  depths  of  human  knowledge  in  His  presence 
who  seems  to  nie  to  be  the  Author  of  the  account. 

"  How  did  you  arrive  at  your  belief  in  this  narra- 
tive? You  certainly  did  not  start  with  it.  Wliat 
course  did  you  pursue  ? " 

No,  I  replied,  I  did  not  start  with  it,  for  when 
I  began  to  study  this  chapter  I  had  no  clearly  formed 
opinions  about  it,  except  that  if  it  was  from  God  it 
would  bear  comparison  with  the  most  advanced 
science,  so  far  as  the  two  treated  of  the  same  subjects; 
or,  as  Dr.  Draper  so  admirably  puts  it  in  his  Intellect- 
ual Development  of  Europe — I  repeat  the  quotation  : 
"  Considering  the  asserted  origin  of  this  book '' — he  is 
speaking  of  the  Koran,  but  his  words  apply  equally 
well  to  any  book  claiming  to  be  a  revelation — "indi- 
rectly from  God  himself — we  might  justly  expect 
that  it  would  bear  to  be  tried  by  any  standard  that 

*  So  much  as  to  the  world's  history,  but  nothing  as  to  the  explana- 
tion of  this  chapter. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  197 

man  can  apply,  and  vindicate  its  truth  and  ex- 
cellence in  tlie  ordeal  of  human  criticism.  .  .  .  As 
years  pass  on,  and  human  science  becomes  more  ex- 
act and  more  comprehensive,  its  conclusions  must  be 
found  in  nnison  therewith.  When  occasion  arises  it 
should  furnish  us  at  least  the  foreshadowing  of  the 
great  truths  discovered  by  astronomy  and  geology, 
not  offering  for  them  the  wild  fictions  of  earlier  ages, 
inventions  of  the  infancy  of  man." 

It  makes  no  difference  that  Dr,  Draper  thought  he 
was  setting  so  high  a  standard  that  it  would  render 
the  claims  of  the  Bible  ridiculous.  I  thank  him  that 
he  has  done  so,  and  trust  that  he  and  his  co-believers 
will  say  no  more  about  the  absurdity  of  looking,  in 
what  claims  to  be  a  revelation,  for  the  foreshadow- 
ing of  great  truths  discovered  by  astronomy  and 
geology.  According  to  him,  such  looking  for  scien- 
tific truths  is  the  proper  mode  of  testing  such  a 
claim.  These  high  demands  of  the  learned  doctor 
absolutely  require  the  Bible,  if  it  really  be  a  revela- 
tion, to  disagree  with  the  conclusions  of  science 
through  all  of  what  may  be  called  its  formative  stages  ; 
hence,  to  disagree  with  the  science  of  the  w^orld 
almost  to  the  present  day,  and  where  science  is  yet 
formative — and  consequently,  of  necessity,  largely 
erroneous — we  must,  on  Dr.  Draper's  showing,  still 
look  for  disagreement.  I  need  hardly  say  that  the 
history  of  the  past  shows  a  i*efusal  on  the  part  of  the 


19S  GENESIS  1.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

Bible  to  agree  with  the  current  science,  and  this,  to 
my  mind,  is  no  small  argument  in  favor  of  its  super- 
human origin. 

But,  to  return  to  your  question.  Heartily  agreeing 
with  Dr.  Draper  as  to  what  a  revealed  cosmogony 
would  do,  I  concluded  to  see  how  far  the  one  which 
we  have  been  discussing  would  bear  his  test.  I  de- 
termined to  drop  all  a  jpriori  notions  as  to  what  a 
revelation  could  or  could  not  do.  All  theories,  thus 
far,  had  proceeded  upon  the  assumption  that  there 
was  some  great  defect,  or  impassable  limit,  either  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  writer  or  in  his  fear  of  going 
beyond  the  capacity  of  his  countrymen.  I  thouglit 
to  try  another  theory,  to  wit,  that,  God  being  the  real 
author,  I  need  have  no  fears  that  our  science  would 
overstep  his,  and,  therefore,  dropping  all  limits  other 
than  he  had  placed  on  the  record,  I  determined  to  take 
his  words  in  their  fullest  and  freest  amplitude  of 
meaning. 

I  first  spread  out  before  me,  as  on  a  great  chart, 
the  discoveries  of  astronomers,  geologists,  and  others, 
pertaining  to  the  early  history  of  our  earth.  Then 
I  took  up  the  statements  in  this  story  of  creation, 
and  looked  on  my  chart  for  something  to  which 
they  exactly  corresponded.  I  made  no  account  of 
previous  beliefs  or  theories,  asked  no  questions  as 
to  time  or  order,  or  whether  Moses  meant  it  or  not ; 
I  just  looked  for  counterparts  of  his  brief  descrip- 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  199 

tions.  When  I  found  one  I  placed  by  it  the  words 
of  Moses,  and  then  ]:)assed  on.  I  will  not  trouble  you 
with  an  account  of  my  easy  success  in  some  cases,' 
nor  of  my  long  and,  for  a  time,  unsuccessful  but 
never  wearisome  search  in  others,  and  my  finding 
diamonds  in  what  seemed  valueless  pebbles,  the 
glorious  flashes  of  liglit  by  which  my  path  was  often 
illumined,  nor  of  failures  sometimes  to  make  any 
progress — failures  due,  as  it  turned  out,  to  my  igno- 
rance of  some  physical  fact,  or  else  to  my  following  a 
version  which  led  me  away  from  the  Hebrew  original. 

At  last  I  had  each  statement  placed,  and  then,  look- 
ing over  the  whole,  to  my  delight  I  found  that  their 
oi'der  on  the  chart  was  exactly  that  in  which  Moses 
had  left  them.  That  the  story  was  true  was  as  cer- 
tain as  the  truth  of  the  sciences  Mdiich  verified  it ; 
that  its  order  was  correct  was  equally  beyond  ques- 
tion ;  that  it  was  not  an  allegory  was  evident,  for 
there  by  its  side  was  a  physical  fact  for  each  sentence. 

"  I  have  often  wondered,"  said  the  Professor,  "  how 
you  came  to  be  so  decided  in  your  belief.  But  with 
the  experience  you  have  been  through  I  do  not  see  how 
it  could  be  otherwise.  I  have  read  various  statements 
as  to  what  was  God's  purpose  in  giving  this  account 
to  man.  I  must  confess  I  never  felt  much  interest  in 
the  matter,  because  it  seemed  to  me  the  wn-iters  were 
trying  to  devise  something  which  should  enable  them 
to  escape  from  some  of  their  many  assailants ;  but 


200  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

now  I  feel  very  differentlj.  Tell  iiic  what,  so  far  as 
you  can  judge,  was  the  purpose  of  its  author  in  giv- 
ino^  this  account  to  man  ?  " 

I  think  I  can  see  several  purposes.  One — the  chief 
— to  set  forth  God's  creatorship,  and  to  impress  upon 
mankind  the  Sabbath  as  a  perpetual  reminder  of  that 
fact ;  another,  to  make  manifest  God's  intense  per- 
sonality, as  distinguished  from  blind  force ;  and  last, 
but  possibly  not  least,  to  authenticate  to  future  ages, 
when  knowledge  should  have  been  increased,  the  high 
origin  of  that  book  of  which  it  is  the  opening  chapter. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  the  broadness  of  the 
claim  to  universal  creatorship  here  put  forth.  It 
shows  itself  all  through  the  chapter,  but  perhaps  more 
noticeably  in  reference  to  animal  life.  The  fiat  com- 
mands certain  kinds  of  creatures  to  appear.  The 
record  says  that  it  was  done,  and  then  adds  that  God 
created  not  these  alone,  but  "  every  living  "  creature, 
not  merely  those  that  came  into  existence  then,  but 
all  living  kinds;  thus  foreshadowing  the  fact  lately 
discovered  that  many  living  creatures  at  these  epochs 
had  come  down  from  earlier  times. 

The  narrative  impresses  on  man  the  Sabbath  as  a 
day  of  rest  by  dividing  the  history  into  six  periods  of 
work  and  then  placing  at  the  close  a  day  of  rest.  If 
the  Sabbath  had  thenceforward  been  observed  for  the 
reason  assigned  in  the  fourth  commandment  the  wor- 
ship of  false  gods  would  have  been  impossible. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  201 

God's  personality  shows  itself  in  such  phrases  as 
"  God  said,"  or  "  God  saw,"  or  "  God  made."  So 
thoroughly  is  this  thought  wrought  into  the  story 
that  it  refuses  to  be  read  in  any  other  sense.  Let  any 
one  attempt  to  substitute  for  God  some  other  word, 
for  example,  force.  He  will  get  through  but  few  lines 
before  he  will  be  compelled  to  feel  that  it  is  no  abstrac- 
tion, but  a  living  person,  of  whom  he  is  reading.  I 
hope  you  will  make  the  experiment  at  your  leisure 
and  go  through  the  chapter.  I  will  repeat  a  few  verses 
which  suffice  for  my  present  ])urpose. 

"  In  the  beginning  force  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth.  And  the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void  ; 
and  darkness  was  upon  tlie  face  of  the  deep.  And 
the  spirit  of  force  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters. 
And  force  said.  Let  there  be  light :  and  there  was 
light.  And  force  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good : 
and  force  divided  between  the  light  and  the  darkness. 
And  force  called  the  light  Day,  and  the  darkness 
he  called  Night." 

We  have  gone  through  but  a  few  lines.  Plainly 
"  force  "  is  a  person  that  thinks,  wulls,  approves,  and 
names.  We  feel  that  in  writing  "  force  "  we  have  been 
guilty  of  disrespect,  and  that  at  the  least  it  should  be 
Force.  This  does  not  satisfy  us,  and  we  hasten  back 
to  that  word  which  expresses  infinite  force  with  per- 
fect personality,  God. 

I  said  this  story  authenticates  the  Bible.     It  does 


202  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

it  by  the  exhibition  of  so  much  knowledge  which, 
until  the  present  time,  was  unattainable  by  man. 
It  reaches  from  the  "beginning"  to  Adam.  Of 
necessity  it  passes  in  silence  over  vast  stretches  of 
time  in  which  occurred  many  events  of  great  impor- 
tance, or  what  is  now  a  chapter  would  have  been 
swelled  to  a  vast  number  of  volumes,  and  thus  the 
utility  of  the  book  as  the  companion  and  comforter  of 
man  would  have  been  destroyed.  It  seems  incred- 
ible, but  it  is  a  fact,  that  these  omissions  have  been 
urged  as  a  strong  if  not  conclusive  reason  for  reject- 
ing the  claim  of  this  chapter  to  be  inspired.  The 
folly  of  such  reasoning  is  surpassed  only  by  its  pre- 
sumption. 

To  this  the  Professor  made  no  reply,  but  remarked  : 
"The  world  has  always  supposed  Moses  referred  to 
events  which  occurred  six  thousand  years  ago.  I 
admit  that  he  does  not  say  so,  nor  does  he  say  any 
thing  to  the  contrary.  He  is  merely  silent.  Now, 
what  right  have  you  to  say  that  he  refers  to  matters  a 
thousand-fold  more  distant  ?  Then,  too,  the  story 
moves  on  apparently  without  break  from  day  to  day 
from  the  first  to  the  last ;  what  right  have  you  to 
separate  statements  so  joined,  and  to  place  between 
them  intervals  of  thousands,  if  not  millions,  of 
years  ?  I  do  not  ask  to  argue,  but  I  really  wish  to 
know  ? " 

The  world's  opinion  has  always  been  a  very  unsafe 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  203 

guide  in  any  matters  pertaining  to  our  earth,  or  its 
history,  whether  in  the  Bible  or  out  of  it. 

Moses  leaves  the  time  of  tlie  beginning  of  crea- 
tion an  open  question.  He  merely  states  certain 
things,  with  no  intimation  as  to  how  much  or  how 
little  time  separates  them.  Tliis  is  a  fact  of  great  im- 
portance, but  one  exceedingly  difficult  to  realize, 
because  it  requires  us  to  rid  ourselves  of  beliefs  which 
have  been  held  from  childhood.  His  narrative,  when 
collated  with  astronomy  and  geology,  agrees,  each 
statement  with  a  fact  throughout,  and  what,  if  possible, 
is  more  marvelous,  the  order  is  the  same.  These 
agreements  are  many  in  number  and  of  the  most 
profound  importance.  Such  and  so  many  agree- 
ments could  not  be  mere  chance  coincidences.  Hence 
I  conclude  that  this  narrative  was  intended  to  de- 
scribe the  very  transactions  to  wdiicli  it  so  exactly 
applies.  The  laws  of  my  mental  being  allow  me  no 
other  conclusion.  Ergo,  it  was  intended  to  extend 
over  all  the  time  which  the  transactions  occupied. 
Astronomy  and  geology,  assure  us  that  these  were 
separated  by  intervals  of  unequal  length  aggregating 
untold  millions  of  years.  The  account  itself  says 
nothing  for  or  against  there  being  such  intervals. 
Agreeing,  as  it  does,  in  all  else  with  the  broadest 
science,  we  would  stultify  ourselves  to  say  that  silence 
is  contradiction.  The  case  is  very  similar  to  that  of 
the  little  skeleton  outline  of  American  historv  wliich 


204  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

I  employed  in  illustration  of  the  "days."  The  child 
who  read  it  without  other  instruction  might,  perhaps?, 
believe  it  the  story  of  a  week ;  but  when,  in  after  years, 
he  learned  from  other  sources  that  it  in  reality  spread 
over  several  centuries,  he  would  need  to  be  an  uncom- 
monly stupid  child  to  insist  that  its  author  taught  that 
the  events  which  it  mentions  followed  each  other  with 
no  greater  interval  than  a  nig] it. 

"  But,"  said  the  Professor,  "  is  not  this  often  styled 
a  Hymn  of  Creation?" 

Yes ;  and  I  see  no  great  objection  to  it.  A  hynm 
may  be  true  as  nmcli  as  if  it  were  prose.  We  may 
imagine  that  at  some  remote  time — perhaps  before  the 
flood — there  lived  one  who  believed  with  all  his  heart  in 
one  God,  Creator  of  all  things.  We  can  think  of  him 
as  meditating  on  the  heavens,  and  the  earth  with  its 
teeming  population,  till  his  thoughts  took  form  in 
words.  His  theme  would  be  God,  Creator  of  heaven 
and  earth,  and  in  loving  detail  we  can  imagine  him  go- 
ing through  the  catalogue  of  God's  works  in  some  such 
outline  as  this,  but  amplified  in  working  out  the  poem  : 

Tn  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and  earth. 

God  made  the  light,  and  separated  it  from  the  darkness,  and  called 

the  one  Day  and  the  other  Night. 
God  made  the  expanse  over  all. 

God  made  the  dry  land  appear,  and  tlie  waters  to  fill  the  seas. 
God  made  the  grass,  the  herbs,  and  the  fruit-bearing  trees. 
God  caused  the  lights  in  the  expanse  of  heaven  to  be  for  signs,  and 

for  seasons,  and  for  days,  and  for  years. 
God  made  them  also,  and  caused  them  to  shine  for  man ;  ho  made 

the  stars  likewise. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  205 

God  made  great  whales  and  other  creatures  of  the  sea. 

And  fowl  to  tiy  in  the  expanse  of  heaven. 

God  made  the  cattle,  beasis,  and  other  hviug  beings  that  move  upoa 

iho  land. 
God  made  man.     In  the  image  of  God  made  he  him. 

At  first  it  would  not  appear  impossible  that  some 
uninspired  man  might  have  written  such  a  poem.  It 
would  excite  our  surprise  that  while  all  other  costnog- 
onies  abound  in  monstrous  polytheistic  fa])les  this 
is  wholly  free.  Had  we  lived  before  the  present 
century,  we  might  have  wondered  tliat  the  writer,  if 
inspired  by  the  All-Wise,  should  have  been  so  igno- 
rant of  true  science  as  to  represent  the  earth  as 
once  to/ni  va  hohu,  "  infinitely  attenuated,  nothingness, 
and  void;"  and  that  he  should  say  light  existed 
before  the  sun,  and  was  called  good,  before  it  was 
divided  from  the  darkness.  We  might  have  insisted, 
as  did  the  philosophers  of  early  days,  that  whatever 
7'akia  might  mean  in  itself  it  must  here  have  been  in- 
tended to  describe  a  solid  support  for  the  waters  above 
the  earth  ;  for  surely  the  writer,  if  inspired,  must  hav^e 
known  about  the  crystalline  spheres  which  every  tyro 
in  "science"  knew  supported  the  vast  upper  stores 
of  water.  And,  as  of  all  things  perhaps  the  inost 
important  was  the  firmament  which  kept  the  waters 
from  descending  and  drowning  out  all  life,  we  would 
have  thought,  as  did  the  scientists  among  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Septuagint,  that  it  was  by  an  oversight 
that  the  firmament  was  not  called  good.      Of  course 


206  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

\t  was  good,  and  the  anther  of  the  account  must  have 
ir.t(!nded  to  so  call  it,  and  therefore  we  should  have 
approved  of  their  interpolating  the  words,  "  And  God 
saw  that  it  was  good." 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  fourth  23eriod,  we  should 
have  had  several  faults  to  find,  but  chiefly  that  the 
poet  ignored  weeks  and  months ;  and  when  we  came 
to  the  next  period  it  would  seem  strange  and  very 
unscientific  that  birds  should  have  appeared  simul- 
taneously with  water  creatures  rather  than  with  land 
animals.  In  fact,  orthodox  scientists  had  a  hard  time 
of  it  till  thej  began  to  know  something  of  the  world's 
real  history.  It  was  not  the  order  that  troubled  them, 
for,  so  far  as  they  could  see,  one  order  was  as  good  as 
another.  Naturally  grass  came  befoi'e  cattle,  but  why 
it  came  before  whales  they  could  not  see,  and  did  not 
imagine  it  was  a  matter  of  any  consequence. 

Calling  light  good  while  it  was,  as  they  thought, 
mingled  with  darkness  was  a  little  singular,  but  it 
did  not  make  any  difference.  Perhaps  the  reason  the 
firmament  was  not  pronounced  good  was  that  the 
devils  were  made  on  that  day.* 

To-day  we  have  a  very  different  science,  and  no 
longer  is  it  necessary  to  do  violence  to  the  dictionary 
to  eke  out  a  harmony  between  it  and  the  story  in 
Genesis.  The  physical  statements  in  the  latter  readily 
find  their  counterpart  in  the  world's  history.  And  if 
*  See  commentary  in  Luther's  Bible  on  this  omission. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  207 

these  are  chance  ao-reemeiits  tliere  remains  the  greater 
miracle,  the  correct  order.  There  are  here  a  large 
number  of  important  points  in  whicli  this  storj  touches 
modern  science,  yet  everj-where  the  order  is  the  true 
one.  It  is  this  above  all  else  that  proves  this  story  is 
from  some  higher  source  than  an  unaided  man. 

"How,"  said  the  Professor,  "do  you  think  this 
story  was  made  known  to  Moses,  or  whoever  wrote 
it  ?  Was  it  put  bodily  into  his  mind,  or  did  lie  see 
the  transactions  as  in  a  vision  ? " 

Since  nothing  has  been  revealed  as  to  the  mode  of 
Moses's  obtaining  this  account,  all  that  I  can  say  is  en- 
titled to  little  weight.  Very  much  whicli  he  has  re- 
corded could  in  the  nature  of  the  case  have  been  made 
known  to  him  only  by  actual  words,  either  spoken  or 
in  some  manner  put  into  his  mind.  For  example,  the 
first  two  verses — no  vision  could  depict  what  they 
record.  Even  now,  with  the  aid  of  our  greatly 
increased  knowledge,  we  can  conjure  up  nothing  better 
to  represent  God  the  Creator,  or  God  the  Spirit,  the 
darkness,  and  the  moving  upon  tlie  waters,  than  certain 
conventional  symbols  which  would  have  had  no  mean- 
ing to  Moses  and  liis  contemporaries. 

Then  there  is  all  that  God  is  represented  as  say- 
ing. This,  too,  could  be  conveyed  to  Moses  only 
through  tlie  medium  of  words,  and  it  forms  a  largo 
part  of  the  narrative. 

Besides  all  this,  I  continued,  there  is  internal  ev- 

n 


208  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

idence  that  the  author  of  this  account  liad  the  skill 
and  knowledge  of  a  trained  observer — a  kind  of  per- 
son unknown  in  those  days  and  not  very  common  now. 
Every  one  who  has  had  experience  in  obtaining  de- 
scriptions of  natural  phenomena  from  ordinary  persons 
knows  how  exceedingly  difficult  it  is  to  get  them  to 
exclude  useless  and  extraneous  matters.  Knowing 
little  of  the  relative  value  of  the  facts  which  they  have 
witnessed,  they  are  likely  to  record  those  of  no  conse- 
quence and  to  omit  others  of  the  highest  value.  But 
here,  in  this  series  of  phenomenal  descriptions,  every 
word  is  appropriate,  every  fact  of  transcendent  im- 
portance. There  is,  too,  an  evident  freedom  and  vi- 
vacity, a  lack  of  doubt  or  hesitation,  as  if  error  was 
impossible,  which  can  be  justified  only  by  the  truth 
of  every  statement.  I  cannot  conceive  of  any  man 
viewing  the  past  and  selecting  such  facts  and  describ- 
ing them  in  language  so  exact.  The  only  conclusion 
that  appears  to  meet  all  the  conditions  of  the  problem 
is  that  this  narrative  was  received  from  a  supernatural 
source.  There  may,  or  there  may  not,  have  been  an 
audible  sound.  Perhaps  words  were  unconsciously 
put  into  the  mind  of  Moses.  But  in  some  way  he 
knew  just  what  words  to  use. 

I  then  spoke  of  Professor  Huxley's  remark,  "  The 
student  of  nature  will  trouble  himself  no  longer  with 
these  theologies,"  and  asked  what  he  thought  of  it,  in 
view  of  what  we  had  seen  as  we  went  over  the  account. 


OUR  NINTH  EVENING.  209 

He  replied :  "  Unless  Professor  Huxley  shall  ex- 
plain away  the  facts — and  I  do  not  see  how  he  can — he 
is  bound  as  a  fair-minded  man  to  recall  his  words.  I 
have  no  doubt  that,  with  his  usual  acuteness  and  that 
freedom  from  all  theological  bias  which  he  claims  for 
himself,  he  will  examine  the  matter  thoroughly,  and 
either  make  the  amende  honoroMe  as  frankly  as  he  has 
made  his  charges,  or  else  he  will  point  out  just  what 
it  is  in  this  story  that  is  contradicted  by  science.*  If 
he  wall  not  do  this  I  shall  think  that  his  opposition 
to  this  part  of  the  Bible  arises,  not  from  a  love  of  the 
truth,  but  from  some  other  motive.  In  such  a  case  I 
shall  look  to  that  eminent  scientist,  Dr.  Draper.  He 
certainly  should  be  able  to  point  out  the  contradictions 
of  science,  if  there  are  any,  because  he  has  made  a 
study  of  what  he  calls  the  conflict  of  religion  and  sci- 
ence. Until  that  is  done  I  shall  venture  to  believe 
that  no  such  conflict  exists.f 

"Either  of  these  gentlemen  could  greatly  aid  in 
settling  this  question  if  he  would  write  out  his  own 
version  of  our  world's  history  in  language  as  brief  and 
simple  as  that  of  Moses,  omitting  every  thing  about 

*In  the  Nineteenth  Century  Professor  Huxley  shows  that  what  he 
calls  the  central  idea  of  this  account  is  an  error;  but  as  that 
"idea"  is  not  taught  in  Genesis,  it  is  still  in  order  to  ask  the  Pro- 
fessor to  point  out  something  in  this  story  which  is  contradicted  by 
science. 

f  Since  the  above  was  written  Dr.  Draper  has  died.  I  let  the  pas- 
sage stand,  hoping  that  lie  on  whom  his  mantle  shall  fall  will  in  tliis 
matter  take  his  place. 


210  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

which  scientists  are  still  disputing.  An  account  made 
lip  of  admitted  facts,  placed  in  their  true  order  by 
such  men,  would  be  most  welcome.  But  I  fear  it 
will  never  be  written." 

"With  this  we  ended  our  discussion,  in  a  very  differ- 
ent spirit  on  his  part  from  that  in  which  it  had  begun, 

A  few  days  later  my  friend  removed  to  a  distant 
part  of  the  country.  I  have  met  him  several  times 
since,  and  we  have  discussed  a  number  of  questions 
about  the  Bible  ;  but,  whatever  doubts  he  may  ex- 
press as  to  other  matters,  he  no  longer  denies  that  at 
least  one  chapter  is  true,  and  is  inex])licable  on  any 
theory  that  assumes  its  human  origin.  At  his  request 
I  prepared  and  sent  him  the  following  epitome  of  the 
teachings  of  Genesis : 

The  universe  is  not  eternal,  for  God  created  it. 

The  earth  was  once  formless — that  is,  part  of  a  neb- 
ulous mass,  and  had  neither  land  nor  seas,  plants  nor 
animals — "  void."  At  first  it  was  non-solid,  mobile, 
easily  flowing,  inaliyim.     And  darkness  covered  it. 

After  motion  was  imparted  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
there  was  light.  The  light  became  good  light  before 
there  were  days  and  nights. 

After  days  and  nights  had  begun  there  was  an  ex- 
panse, or  thinning,  made  in  the  midst  of  the  dense  at- 
mosphere of  steam  and  clouds  which  at  first  envel- 
oped the  earth.  The  expanse  was  not  yet  litted  for 
higher  forms  of  life — not  "good." 


0  UR  NINTH  E  VENING.  2 1 1 

After  the  waters  were  deposited  under  the  expanse, 
the  earth  was  covered  with  water,  beneath  whicli  lay 
tlie  future  continents.  Tlie  seas  and  oceans  are  one 
great  basin — "  one  place." 

Of  the  vast  geological  periods  from  the  beginning 
of  the  emergence  of  the  land  till  both  land  and  sea 
could  be  pronounced  ready,  or  "good"  for  their  in- 
tended purpose,  all  is  passed  over  without  notice. 

In  the  rest  of  the  account  the  writer  speaks  of 
things  the  Hebrews  knew  of  and  were  interested  in, 
the  contemporary  plants  and  animals,  and  the  sun  and 
moon  and  stars,  the  various  measures  of  time,  and  of 
Adam,  their  great  progenitor.  Moses  says  God  made 
all  these,  and  to  the  Hebrews  that  was  the  only  mat- 
ter of  moment  about  it.  But  from  a  scientific  stand- 
point the  most  interesting  thing  is  the  order  in  which 
Moses  says  God  made  them. 

Genesis  puts  the  modern  flora  first,  not  of  all  organ- 
isms, but  of  the  three  "horizons"  of  which  he  speaks. 

Next  come  the  arrangements  by  which  the  great 
lights  were  to  divide  between  the  day  and  the  night, 
and  w^ere  to  be  for  times  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days 
and  years. 

Still  later  come  great  whales  and  other  living  kinds 
of  water  animals  and  fowl. 

Then  come  cattle,  beasts,  and  other  living  land 
creatures,  and  lastly  Adam. 

I  added   a  list  of   "  errors  "   often   charwed'  to  this 


212  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

story  unjustly,  being  for  the  most  part  somebody's 
inferences  or  false  science  interpolated,  perhaps  un- 
consciously, into  the  account :  "  The  universe  was  made 
six  thousand  years  ago."  "  Light  and  darkness  are 
substances."  "  There  is  a  solid  dome  or  arch  above 
the  earth."  "The  sun  and  moon  are  supported  by 
tliat  arch."  "  The  earth  is  the  largest  body  in  the 
universe."  "  The  continents  and  seas  were  made  in 
a  few  hours."  "  These  were  all  completed  before  any 
plants  or  animals  existed."  "  There  were  no  plants 
or  animals  before  grasses,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees." 
"  The  sun  was  created  after  these  plants."  "  The 
earth  is  laro-er  than  the  sun  or  the  stars."  "  There 
was  no  animal  life  on  land,  or  in  the  water,  before 
whales  and  birds."  "  There  were  no  land  animals 
before  cattle,  beasts,  and  other  living  creatures." 
*'  There  were  no  men  before  Adam." 

Not  one  of  these  statements  is  found  in  this  ac- 
count. Each  is  merely  an  inference  by  somebody  from 
what  he  thinks  Moses  meant.  Mostly  they  are  bare 
interpolations.  As  to  the  last,  it  is  more  than  doubt- 
ful whether  men  existed  before  Adam,  but,  in  any 
case,  nothing  is  said  about  it.  The  other  statements 
have  been  refuted  again  and  again,  and  yet  each  time 
the  opponents  of  revelation  had  congratulated  them- 
selves that  it  had  received  a  fatal  blow.  The  last  success 
in  this  direction  is  Professor  Huxley's  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,   where   he  tells   Mr.   Gladstone  that   there 


0  UR  NINTH  E  VENING.  213 

were  water  creatures  before  whales,  flying  creatures 
before  birds,  and,  he  might  have  added,  vegetation 
before  grasses,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees. 

But  as  Genesis  says  nothing  to  the  contrary  it  is 
difficult  to  see  what  bearing  the  Professor's  article  has 
on  this  chapter. 


214  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


DR.   DRAPER'S  TEST. 


WHAT  OF   MODERN   DISCOVERIES  ARE    FORESHADOWED  IN 
THE  HEBREW  STORY  OF  CREATION. 

1.  It  states  distinctly  that  tlie  universe  had  a  l)e- 
ginning,  thus  anticipating  the  result  of  Professor 
Tait's  law  of  "  Degradation  of  Energy." 

2.  That  the  heaven  and  earth  were  not  created  all 
finislied.  It  states  distinctly  three  most  important 
characteristics  of  the  earth's  primordial  condition.  The 
earth  was,  it  says,  tohic  *  va  bohu,  rendered  in  our  ver- 
sion, "without  form  and  void;"  it  was  a  non-solid  or 
fluid  substance;  it  was  a  profound  abyss.  These  fore- 
shadow the  nebular  hypothesis. 

3.  It  says  that  light  was  not  eternal,  nor  self-exist- 
ent, and  that  darkness  preceded  motion.  It  thus  fore- 
shadows the  modern  discovery  that  light  is  a  mode 
of  motion,  and  that  late  generalization,  the  correlation 
of  forces. 

4.  It  states  explicitly  that  matter  and  motion  are 
each  due  to  the  will  of  the  First  Cause.  It  thus  fore- 
shadows the  results  of  the  highest  modern  philosophy. 

*  No  word  in  our  language  can  do  justice  to  the  exquisite  exactness 
of  iohu  as  applied  to  the  infinitely  attenuated  matter  out  of  which  the 
earth  was  formed.     See  page  43,  this  book. 


DR.  DRAPER'S  TEST.  215 

5.  It  foreshadows  what  modern  physicists  look  upon 
as  their  discovery.     That  light  is  older  than  the  sun. 

6.  It  foreshadows  the  fact  discovered  by  the  spec- 
troscope, that  nebulous  light  became  the  same  as 
solar  light  (that  is,  good)  before  day  and  night  began 
their  alternations. 

I.  It  intimates  very  plainly  that  after  the  earth 
had  so  cooled  as  to  have  days  and  nights,  it  was 
wrapped  in  dense  aqueous  vapor. 

8.  It  more  than  foreshadows  the  recent  discovery 
by  paleo-chemists,  that  at  first  the  atmosphere  was 
poisonous  with  foul  gases — was  not  good. 

9.  It  teaches  what  is  a  very  recent  discovery,  that 
originally  the  water  covered  what  is  now  dry  land. 

10.  It  more  than  foreshadows  the  great  geograph- 
ical discovery  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries, 
that  the  oceans  and  seas  form  one  great  basin. 

II.  It  more  than  foreshadows  the  true  order  of 
development  of  the  organic  forms  which  are  con- 
temporaneous with  man. 

12.  It  foreshadows  an  important  and  recent  geo- 
logical discovery  when  it  places  the  present  flora  after 
the  completion  of  the  oceans  and  continents, 

13.  And  before  the  present  vertebrate  fauna  of  the 
ocean, 

14.  And  before  the  fowls  of  the  air. 

15.  It  foreshadows  something  yet  to  be  made 
known — probably,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  introduction 


216  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

of  seasons  and  unequal  days  and  nights.    Three  geo- 
logical facts  in  harmony  with  this  are  known  : 

(1)  The  earlier  and  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the 
world's  history  shows  no  evidence  of  seasons. 

(2)  An  immense  and  all-important  climatic  change 
after  the  production  of  present  genera  of  plants. 

(3)  The  glacial  epoch  having  passed,  there  is  thence- 
forth abundant  evidence  of  seasons  with  all  that  that 
implies. 

16.  It  foreshadows  the  geological  fact  that  the  higher 
kinds  of  water  creatures  and  fowl — those  now  living 
— are  of  one  "  liorizon,"  *  and  that  they  preceded  the 
"  horizon "  of  cattle,  beasts,  and  other  creatures  of 
to-day. 

lY.  It  foreshadows  the  failure,  at  least  thus  far,  of 
scientists  to  discover  any  classes,  orders,  families,  or 
genera  of  plants  or  vertebrate  animals  whose  origin  is 
more  recent  than  the  six  thousand  or  ten  thousand 
years,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  since  present  cattle  and 
beasts  appeared.  The  birds  and  beasts  carved  or 
painted  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  are  fac-similes  of 
the  birds  and  beasts  there  to-day. 

If  any  document  by  any  scientist,  ancient  or  mod- 
ern, can  be  found  "foreshadowing"  equal  to  this,  I 
would  like  to  see  it. 

*  "  Of  the  same  horizon  is  said  of  fossils  which  appear  to  have 
lived  at  the  same  time." 


TUE  TRADITIONAL  STORY  OF  CREATION.  217 


THE    TRADITIONAL   STORY   OF   CREATION. 


SUPPOSED  TO  BE  FOUND   IN  GENESIS,  CHAPTER  I. 

In  the  following  paraphrase  I  have  endeavored  to 
set  fortli,  briefly  and  clearly,  what  is  usually  regarded 
as  the  explicit  teachings  of  the  first  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis, and  acce]:>ted  as  such  by  friends  and  foes.  Re- 
cently, however,  its  friends  have  abandoned  the  six 
thousand  year  date  of  creation,  and  most  of  them  have 
adopted  the  belief  that  the  days  here  spoken  of  were 
great  periods,  and  that  "firmament "  is  a  mistranslation. 
One  change  in  the  order  I  have  adopted,  because  "  the 
science  "  of  the  best-informed  of  say  fifty  years  ago  ap- 
proved of  it,  not  formally,  indeed,  but  logically.  I 
refer  to  the  light's  being  good  afte7'  it  was  divided 
from  the  darkness.  It  will  be  seen  that  I  have  con- 
densed and  omitted  in  order  to  save  space  and  avoid 
repetitions ;  but  in  no  case  have  I  done  so  where  it 
would  affect,  j?yc>  or  con,  the  account. 

The  traditional  Genesis  has  been  the  object  of  the 
attacks  based  upon  the  "  mistakes  "  of  Moses,  and  it  is 
here  that  the  opponents  of  revelation  have  won  their 
victories.  In  direct  violation  of  the  "scientific 
method,"  they  assume  that  tliese  second-band  state- 
ments are  the   teacliings  of  tliis  account,  and  when 


218  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

they  liave  demolished  what  somebody  says  Moses  in- 
tended to  say,  they  shout  in  trinmph  that  tlie  student 
of  nature  will  no  longer  trouble  himself  with  these 
theologies. 

In  the  beginning,  about  6,000  '  years  ago,  God  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,  out  of  nothing.* 

And  the  earth  was  a  chaotic  mass,  without  law  or  order.^ 

And  God  made  the  substance  ^  darkness,  and  it  covered  the  deep. 

And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  shoreless  water.* 

And  God  made  the  light-substance,^ 

And  the  light  and  the  darkness  were  mixed  one  with  the  other,^ 
until  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness. 

And  after  this  division  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good.' 

And  God  called  the  light  Day,  and  the  darkness  he  called  Night. 

And  all  this  was  done  in  one  day — the  first  day.^ 

And  God  made  a  solid,  transparent  dome  over  the  earth,  to  support 
the  upper  waters  and  to  separate  them  from  the  waters  beneath.^ 

And  this,  too,  was  good.'" 

And  the  firmament  was  made  in  one  day — the  second  day." 

And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  be  gathered  unto  one  place  and  let 
the  dry  land  appear. 

And,  at  once,  it  was  done.'' 

'  Genesis  says  nothing  of  6,000  years. 

*  Not  so  stated  in  Genesis. 

^  Ganesis  does  not  say  darkness  was  a  substance. 

*  Genesis  says,  "  on  the  face  of  "  mahyim,  something  not  solid,  the 
exact  equivalent  of  our  word  ''  fluid."     It  does  not  say  "  shoreless." 

*  Genesis  nowhere  says  or  implies  that  light  is  a  substance. 

*  Genesis  does  not  say  that  the  light  and  darkness  were  mixed. 
They  were,  indeed,  divided,  as  they  are  now,  by  the  opaque  earth. 

'  Genesis  puts  "good"  before  the  division.     So  does  science. 

^  Genesis  merely  announces  after  the  work  a  day — the  first — but 
does  not  say  any  thing  was  done  in  it. 

'  Genesis  says  nothing  of  any  solid  support.  It  speaks  only  of  an 
"  expanse." 

'"  Not  so  pronounced  in  Genesis.  "  See  note  8. 

'^  Genesis  does  not  say  it  was  done  in  a  moment,  nor  in  what  time. 


TUE  TRADITIONAL  STORY  OF  CREATION.  219 

The  sea  and  the  land,  in  a  few  hours,  were  completed  in  all  their 
present  extent. ' 

And  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

But  as  yet  God  had  made  no  plants  nor  animals  of  any  kind.'* 

And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  send  forth  its  first  vegetation,^ 
namely,  grasses,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees  bearing  fruit  whose  seed  is  in 
it.     And  it  was  so. 

And  first  of  all  plants'*  appeared  grasses,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees,  and 
clothed  the  hitherto  naked  earth. 

And  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

And  all  this  was  done  on  one  day  * — the  third  day. 

But  as  yet  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  were  not  in  existence,^  and 
there  were  no  water ''  creatures,  nor  fowl,^  nor  land  animals.^ 

And  God  said,  Let  there  now  be  made  great  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven,'"  and  let  them  divide  the  day  from  the  night,  and  let 
them  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days,  and  for  months'' 
and  years. 

And  God  made  the  sun  and  moon  and  the  stars  all  at  this  time.'^ 

And  all  this  was  done  on  one  day  '^ — the  fourth. 

And  as  yet  God  had  not  made  any  living  creatures — either  in  the 
water,  or  in  the  air,  or  on  the  land.''* 

But  now  animals — the  first  kinds  on  our  globe — appeared,  to  wit, 
great  whales  and  other  water  creatures  and  fowl,'^  but  as  yet  no  land 
animals.'^ 

'  Genesis  does  not  say  so.  '  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 

'  Genesis  does  not  say  this  was  the  first  vegetation. 

*  Genesis  does  not  say  so.  *  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 

*  Genesis  does  not  say  so.  ''  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 

*  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 

*  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 
"*  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 

"  Genesis  does  not  speak  of  months. 

"*  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 

'3  See  note  8. 

'*  Genesis  says  nothing  as  to  whether  God  had  previously  made 
any  animal. 

'^  Genesis  says  nothing  as  to  these  being  the  first  animals  on  the 
earth. 

'^  Genesis  does  not  say  so. 


220  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

And  all  these  were  created  in  one  day — the  fifth.  ^ 
And  God  said,  Let  now  the  first  land  animals  appear,  and  let  land 
life  now  begin  in  cattle,  beasts,  and  creeping  things.'^ 

Thus  far  in  the  storj  ahnost  every  thing  has  been 
falsified  by  traditional  beliefs.  The  rest  of  the  ac- 
count has  not  been  affected  in  this  way. 

'  See  note  8. 

'■'  Genesis  says  nothing  of  these  being  the  first. 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION        221 


THE   BABYLONIAN   LEGEND   OF   CREATION.* 


IS    IT  THE  ORIGIXAL,    OF   THE    STORY  IN  THE    FIRST    CHAP- 
TER OF   GENESIS? 

Among  the  interesting:  "iinds"  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tigris  are  tablets  which  are  said  to  contain  the  origi- 
nal of  the  Hebrew  account  of  the  creation,  tlie  fall, 
and  the  deluge.  As  to  the  last,  there  can  be  no  donbt 
that  the  tablets  give  a  distorted  version  of  that  great 
cataclysm.  This  is  not  surprising.  The  comparative 
nearness  of  the  event  accounts  for  the  accuracy  of 
some  of  the  details.  As  to  the  fall,  Professor  Sayce, 
in  his  revised  edition  of  Mr.  George  Smith's  Chal- 
dean Genesis,  says :  "  No  Chaldean  legend  of  the 
fall  has  been  found."  Whether  Professor  Sayce  is 
right  Assyriologists  must  decide.  The  sole  question 
I  propose  to  consider  is  this  :  Whatever  may  or  may 
not  be  true  as  to  other  matters,  did  the  Hebrews  de- 
rive their  cosmogony  from  Chaldeans?  Is  the  story 
on  the  tablets  the  original  from  which  the  Bible  story 
of  creation  was  taken  ? 

It  will,  I  think,  conduce  to  clearness  of  thought  if 
w^e  state  what  is  necessary  to  constitute  one  document 

*  As  given  in  the  versions  of  Mr.  George  Smith  and  Professors 
Sayce  and  Lenormaut. 


222  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

the  original  of  another.  1.  It  must  be  older.  2.  It 
must  treat  of  the  same  subject.  3.  There  must  be 
great  similarity,  amounting  almost  to  identity,  in 
thought,  language,  order  of  statement,  and  mode  of 
treatment.  The  first  and  second  are  of  no  importance 
without  the  third. 

It  is  said  that  the  great  antiquity  of  the  Chaldean 
account  establishes  its  priority  over  that  in  our  Bible, 
and  that  the  long  sojourn  of  the  Hebrews  in  Babylon 
gave  them  an  opportunity  to  obtain  it  from  the 
records  in  that  city.  It  happens,  however,  tliat  what- 
ever may  be  the  age  of  the  other  myths,  the  Babylonian 
"  creation  "  is  of  comparatively  recent  date,  for,  accord- 
ing to  Professor  Sayce's  revised  edition  of  George 
Smith's  translation,  "It  is  evident  that  in  its  present 
form  it  was  probably  composed  in  the  reign  of  Assnr- 
bauipal,  B.  C.  670.  It  breathes  throughout  the  spirit 
of  a  later  age  ;  its  language  and  style  show  no  trace  of 
an  Assyrian  original ;  and  the  colophon  at  the  end 
implies  by  its  silence  that  it  was  not  a  copy  of  an 
older  document." — Page  56. 

But,  admitting  that  the  Chaldean  account  is  suf- 
ficiently ancient,  the  opposing  fact  remains  that  the 
Hebrews,  instead  of  being  drawn  to  the  religious  belief 
of  their  conquerors,  became  bitterly  opposed  to  it 
and  to  every  form  of  polytheism.  And  besides,  they 
were  a  proud  and  exclusive  race.  They  looked  down 
with  contempt  on  all  the  rest  of  mankind.     It  seems 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION.         223 

impossible  that  they  not  only  adopted  the  story  of  crea- 
tion from  those  whose  persons,  religious  beliefs,  and 
ceremonies  they  hated,  and  incorporated  it  into  their 
own  sacred  books,  but  even  gave  it  the  place  of  honor. 
It  seems  equally  incredible  that  Assyrian  priests, 
the  most  exclusive  of  men,  were  willing  to  impart 
their  sacred  writings  to  those  who  scouted  them  and 
their  gods.  The  improbability  of  their  bestowing 
such  a  gift  is  exceeded  only  by  the  improbability  of 
its  being  accepted. 

To  this,  however,  it  may  be  replied  tliat  if  the 
Hebrews  got  the  account  the  improbability  is  of  no 
consequence.  We  are  left,  therefore,  to  an  examina- 
tion of  the  cosmogonies.  In  them  we  shall  find  the 
means  of  answering  the  question.  If  there  prove  to  be 
agreements  between  them,  the  probability  that  one  was 
derived  from  the  other,  or  both  from  some  older  docu- 
ment, will  be  proportioned  to  the  number  and  char- 
acter of  the  particulars  in  which  thej'  agree.  If  these 
are  but  few,  and  if  they  are  such  as  would  of  necessity 
be  found  in  every  cosmogony — if,  for  example,  both 
accounts  speak  of  the  heavens,  the  earth,  and  sea  ;  of  cat- 
tle and  beasts ;  of  sun,  moon,  stars,  and  the  like — this 
should  have  no  weight  in  determining  whether  the  one 
was  derived  from  the  other,  because,  in  order  to  be  a 
cosmogony  at  all,  some  or  all  of  these  things  must  be 
mentioned.     Much  more   is   necessary.     It  must  be 

sliown   that  the  teachings  of  the  two  are  essentially 
15 


224  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

alike.  Tliere  vcaxy  be  additions  and  variations,  but 
down  under  it  all  there  must  be  substantial  agreement. 
It  goes  without  sajing  that,  if  tliere  be  flat  contradiction 
in  the  fundamental  ideas,  not  in  one  or  two  particu- 
lars only  but  in  many,  the  Hebrew  account  cannot 
have  been  derived  from  the  Chaldean. 

Three  Clialdean  cosmogonies  are  known.  The  most 
famous  is  that  styled  by  Mr.  George  Sniitli  "  The 
Babylonian  Legend  of  Creation  ;  "  the  second  was 
found  in  what  is  called  "  The  Tablet  of  Cutlia  ;  "  and 
the  third  is  the  story  told  by  Berosus.  The  tirst  is 
the  only  one  referred  to  in  connection  with  the  story 
in  Genesis,  probably  because  it  is  comparatively  free 
from  absurdities  and  monstrosities.  Mr.  Smith  pub- 
lished his  translation  in  1875.  In  1880  Professor 
Sayce  published  a  new  edition  of  Mr.  Smith's  book, 
"  thoroughly  revised  and  corrected."  Tlie  changes 
introduced  by  Professor  Sayce  are  very  considerable. 
Later  yet,  Lenormant,  in  his  Beginnings  of  History^ 
has  given  a  more  readable  version,  but  one  which  dif- 
fers little  from  that  of  Professor  Sayce. 

Since  the  claim  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
was  derived  from  the  Chaldeans  is  based  upon  Mr. 
Smith's  version  I  shall  give  that  in  full,  adding,  how- 
ever, in  notes  or  otherwise,  the  other  versions  where 
the  difference  is  important  enough  to  warrant  it.  In 
fact,  it  is  of  little  consequence  which  translation  is 
used. 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION.        225 

1.  When  above  the  heavens  were  not  raised,* 

2.  And  below  on  the  earth  not  a  plant  had  grown, f 

3.  The  abyss,  also,  had  not  broken  open  their  (sic)  boundaries,  % 

4.  The  chaos  (or  water)  Tiamat  (the  sea)  was  the  mother  of  them  all. 

5.  At  tlie  beginning  those  waters  were  ordained  ;  § 

6.  But  not  a  tree  had  grown,  not  a  flower  had  unfolded.  |j 

7.  When  tlie  gods  had  not  sprung  up,  any  one  of  them ;  ^ 

8.  Not  a  plant  had  grown,  and  order  did  not  exist.** 

9.  Then  were  made  also  the  great  gods. 

10.  The  gods  Lakhamu  and 

11.  Lakhamu  they  caused  to  come  .  .  .  and  they  grew. 

12.  The  gods  Sar  and  Kisar  were  made 

13.  A  course  of  days  and  a  long  time  passed  .  .  . 

14.  The  gods  Sar  and  .  .  . 

Taking  Mr.  Sinith's  version,  or  one  of  those  in  the 
notes,  and  putting  it  into  plain  English,  it  says  that 
at  the  opening  of  the  account  the  heavens,  earth,  and 
sea  were  in  existence  ;  but  that  order  did  not  exist 
and  there  were  no  gods.  The  sea  was  the  mother  of 
all.  The  great  gods,  a  pair,  were  produced  first  and 
grew  to  maturity.  Another  pair,  Sar  and  Kisar,  M'ere 
made  next.  Then  a  long  time  passed,  after  which 
the  gods  Anu,  Bel,  and  Ilea  were  born  of  Sar  and 
Kisar.     This  is  absolutely  all.     But  Mr.  Smith  says, 

*  Sayce  :  Were  not  named. 

f  Sayce  :  Below,  the  earth  by  name  was  not  recorded. 

\  Sayce:  The  boundless  deep  was  their  generator  (father). 

§  Sayce  omits  at  the  beginning,  and  changes  the  rest  to  "  their 
waters  were  gathered  togetlier  in  one  place." 

II  Sayce  says :  The  flowering  reed  was  not  gathered ;  the  marsh 
plant  was  not  grown.  Lenormant  renders  the  same  line  by,  No 
flock  of  animals  was  as  yet  collected. 

T[  Sayce :  Had  not  been  produced. 

**  Sayce  :   By  name  they  had  noc  been  called. 


226  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

and  so  does  Professor  Sayce,  "  This  corresponds  with 
the  first  two  verses  of  Genesis  !  "  Corresponds  how  ? 
In  Genesis,  we  read  :  "  In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth."  The  tablet  says  nothing 
like  that. 

We  read  in  Genesis  that  the  earth  was  without 
form  and  void.  In  the  myth  we  are  told  that  before 
the  gods  were  made  order  did  not  exist.  At  first  this 
may  seem  to  be  the  same  as  the  "  without  form  *  and 
void  "  of  Genesis  ;  but  modern  science  has  taught  us 
that  these  words  describe  a  condition  which  actually 
existed  while  our  earth  was  an  unsegregated  part  of 
the  great  nebulous  mass,  and  that  there  never  was  a 
time  when  order  did  not  exist.  Matter  has  always 
been  obedient  to  law,  whether  in  nebula,  sun,  or 
planet.  Genesis  knows  nothing  of  a  chaos.  Genesis 
says,  after  the  heaven  and  earth  were  created  dark- 
ness covered  the  face  of  the  deep,  and  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.  The 
myth  says  the  great  gods  were  not  yet  made.  The 
water  was  the  mother  of  them  all.  In  Genesis  we 
read  :  "  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light :  and  there 
was  light."  In  the  myth  we  read  nothing  like  this  ; 
so  far  as  the  tablets  are  concerned  light  always  existed. 

In  these  few  verses  of  our  Genesis  there  are  five 
distinct  propositions,  and  not  one  of  them  parallel  to 
any  thing  in  the  myth  ;  and  only  one  lias  the  slight- 
*  Any  of  the  various  meanings  of  tohu  will  answer  here. 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION.        227 

est  resemblance.  Instead  of  similarity  there  is  pro- 
foundest  difference.  According  to  the  Hebrew  ac- 
count, God  preceded  all  things,  and  he  created  heaven, 
earth,  and  sea.  The  tablet  says,  the  heaven,  earth,  and 
sea  were  first ;  and  at  that  time  "  the  great  gods  had 
not  been  produced,  any  one  of  them." 

The  Hebrew  account  knows  but  one  God ;  the 
Chaldean  has  many  gods.  The  one  declares  that  God 
made  the  universe;  the  other,  that  the  universe  made 
the  gods.  In  the  one,  the  beginning  is  that  point  in 
the  existence  of  God  when  the  universe  began  to  be  ; 
in  the  other,  it  is  the  point  in  the  existence  of  the 
universe  when  the  gods  began  to  be.  It  is  impossi- 
ble to  conceive  of  two  accounts  more  flatly  contradic- 
tory. Unfortunately,  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
tablets  have  not  been  found.  There  is,  however,  a 
fragment  which,  it  is  thought,  may  belong  here.  I 
give  Mr.  Smith's  version  : 

1.  When  (thou  didst  make)  the  foundation  of  the  ground  (or  cav- 
erns, according  to  Sayce)  of  rock. 

2.  The  foundation  of  the  ground  (caverns,  Sayce)  thou  didst  call 

3.  Thou  didst  beautify  the  heavens  (the  heavens  were  named, 
Sayce), 

4.  To  the  face  of  the  heaven  ... 

5.  Thou  didst  give  .  .  . 

This  tablet  is  so  incomplete  that  it  scarcely  calls  for 
remark.  It  contains  but  little,  and  that  little  illus- 
trates the  character  of  all  the  tablets.  So  far  as  what 
they  say  is  true  it  is  nothing  more  tlian  every  intel- 


228 


GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


ligent  man  of  that  day  already  knew.  The  foundations 
of  the  caverns  are  indeed  of  rock,  and  the  heavens  are 
beautiful ;  but  this  adds  no  new  idea.  Every  Chal- 
dean knew  that  as  well  as  the  writer  of  the  inscription. 
But  in  Genesis,  in  the  third  pei'iod,  to  which  it  is 
said  this  tablet  corresponds,  there  is  set  forth  in  no 
Delphian  utterance  the  important  fact,  only  of  late 
discovered  by  geologists,  that  the  waters  once  covered 
the  present  dry  land. 

The  next  tablet  is  the  best  preserved  of  all.  There 
are  many  variations  in  the  translations.  These  are 
important  as  showing  the  tentative  cliaracter  of  the 
rendering,  but  are  of  no  special  interest  so  far  as  the 
question  of  the  origin  of  the  Mosaic  account  is  con- 
cerned. 


Mr.  Smith's  Version. 
It  was  delightful  all  that  was  es- 
tablished by  the  great  gods. 
He  *  arranged  the  stars  and  caused 
their  appearance  in  (figures)  of 
animals,  to  establish  the  year 
through  observing  their  constella- 
tions. 

He  arranged   twelve   months    of 
stars  in  three  rows, 
from  the  day  when  the  year  com- 
mences to  its  close. 
He    marked   the   position   of  the 
planets  to  shiue  in  their  courses. 


Professor  Sayce's  Version. 

1  (Auu)  made  suitable  tlie  man- 
sions of  the  (seven)  great  gods. 

2  The  stars  he  placed  in  them, 
tlie  lumasi  f  he  fixed. 

3  He  arranged  the  year  accord- 
ing to  the  bounds  that  he 
defined. 

4  For  each  of  the  twelvemonths, 
three  stars  he  fixed, 

5  from  the  day  when  the  year 
issues  forth  to  its  close. 

6  He  established  the  mansion 
of  the  god  Nibiru,  that  they 
might  know  their  laws  (or 
bounds). 


'Probably  Anu. 


f  A  constellation. 


THE  BABYLOmAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION. 


229 


that    they    may    not    injure    nor 
tronble  any  one. 

He  fixed  the  position  of  the  gods 
Bel  and  Hea  with  him. 

And  he  opened  the   great   gates 
which  were  shrouded  in  darkness, 

whose  fastenings  were  strong  on 
the  rig! it  hand  and  on  the  left. 
In  the  mass  he  made  a  boiling. 

He  made  the  god  Uru  (the  moon) 
to  rise  out  of  it. 


The  night  he  overshadowed,  to  fix 
it  also  for  the  light  of  the  night 
until  the  shining  of  the  day  ; 
that  the  month  might  not  be 
broken,  and  that  it  might  be  reg- 
ular in  its  amount. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  month,  at 
tlie  rising  of  the  night, 

its  horns  break  through  to  shine 
in  the  heavens. 

On  the  seventh  day  it  begins  to 

swell  to  a  circle, 

and  stretches  farther  toward  the 

dawn. 

"When  the  god  Shamas  (the  sun) 

in  the  horizon  of  lieaven  in   the 

east  ... 

.  .  .  formed  beautifully. 


7  that  they  might  not  err  or  de- 
flect at  all. 

8  The  mansion  of  Bel  and  Hea 
he  established  alone  with  him- 
self. 

9  He  opened  also  perfectly  the 
great  gates  in  the  sides  of  the 
world ; 

10  the  bolts  he  strengthened  on 
the  left  hand  and  on  tlie  right. 

1 1  In  its  center  also,  he  made  a 
staircase. 

12  The  moon-god  he  caused  to 
beautify  the  thick  night,  and 
he  fixed  for  it  the  seasons  of 
its  nocturnal  phases  which 
determine  the  days. 

1."?  He  appointed  him  also  to  hin- 
der (or  balance)  the  night  that 
the  day  may  be  known. 

14  (Saying:)  Every  month  with- 
out break,  observe  thy  circle. 

15  Atthe  beginning  of  the  niontli 
also,  when  the  night  is  at  its 
height, 

1 6  (with)  the  horns  thou  announc- 
est  that  the  heaven  may  be 
known. 

17  On  the  seventh  day  (thy)  cir- 
cle (begins  to)  fill, 

18  but  the  half  on  the  right  will 
remain  open  in  darkness. 

19  At  that  time  the  sun  (will  be) 
on  the  horizon  of  heaven  at 
thy  rising. 

20  (Thy  form)  determine,  and 
make  a  (circle  ?) 

21  (From  hence)  return  (and)  ap- 
proach the  path  of  the  sun. 


230  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

22  (Then)  will  the  darkness  re- 
turn; the  sun  will  change. 

23  . . .  seek  its  road . . . 

24  (Rise     and)    set,    and   judge 
judgment. 

. .  .the  gods  on  his  liearing. 

This  tablet,  according  to  Mr.  Smitli,  Lenormant, 
and  Assyriologists  generally,  parallels  the  fourth  of 
the  creative  periods  of  Genesis.  But  on  comparison 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  resemblance  is  confined  to  the 
one  fact  that  both  speak  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars. 
As  to  all  else  the  diiference  is  radical.  The  tablet  in 
Mr.  Smith's  version  opens  with  the  statement  that  all 
that  the  gods  had  established  was  delightful.  This 
epithet — it  is  used  also  in  the  seventh  tablet — corre- 
sponds, in  Mr.  Smith's  opinion,  to  "good"  in  the 
story  of  Genesis.  "  Good,"  when  applied  to  things 
without  moral  qualities,  has  but  one  signification, 
namely,  fitness  for  their  proper  use  or  completeness. 
But  delightful  has  no  such  meaning.  It  is  only  a 
synonym  for  "pleasing;"  and  when  applied,  as  in  the 
seventh  tablet,  to  monsters,  is  simply  burlesque. 
Professor  Sayce  substitutes  "suitable,"  and  Lenor- 
mant says  "  excellent."  Both  of  these  improve  the 
sense  ;  but  either  takes  from  the  tablet  what  has  been 
claimed  as  a  proof  that  the  Hebrews  took  their  ac- 
count from  this  source.  But  the  difference  here  be- 
tween Genesis  and  the  tablet  is  more  profound  than  a 
matter  of  words.     In  the  former  the  Creator  is  repre- 


THE  BA  B  YL  ONI  AN  LEGEND  OF  CREA  TION.        23 1 

sented  as  surveying  his  work  and  pronouncing  it 
good.  In  the  tablets  there  is  no  creator,  but  only  an 
arranger,  or  arrangers,  of  what  already  existed.  And 
it  is  not  they  wlio  pronounce  the  mansions  of  the 
gods  and  the  monsters  "  pleasing,"  or  "  suitable,"  or 
"  excellent,"  whatever  the  correct  rendering  may  be, 
but  it  is  the  writer  of  the  story. 

Even  in  the  order  of  its  statements  the  tablet  is 
antipodal  to  Genesis.  The  one  speaks  of  the  stars 
first,  then  of  tlie  moon,  and  last  of  the  sun.  The 
other  reverses  this,  and  tells  of  the  sun  and  moon, 
and  then  of  the  stars.  In  Genesis  we  read  that 
God  made  them  all.  In  the  myth  they  are  eternal. 
The  creation  of  the  universe — a  beginning  to  the 
"  everlasting  hills  " — was  an  idea  to  which  the  writer 
of  the  tablets  had  not  risen.  In  his  belief,  Anu 
merely  arranged  the  stars  and  caused  the  already  ex- 
istent moon  to  come  from  its  place  in  the  center  of 
the  earth,  while  the  sun  was  in  no  way  affected  by 
him  or  any  of  the  other  gods.  The  myth  says  that 
Anu  established  the  year  through  observing  constel- 
lations of  the  stars.  In  Genesis  the  stars  have  no 
part  to  perform  for  our  earth.  It  is  the  "great 
lights  "  that  are  to  be  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  for 
days  and  years.  In  the  tablet  we  read  :  "  He  marked 
the  position  of  the  planets  in  their  courses,  that  they 
may  not  injure  or  trouble  any  one."  How  thoroughly 
this  is  saturated  with  the  astrological  notion  then  and 


232  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

for  centuries  later  so  prevalent,  that  the  stars  exert 
an  influence  over  men  for  good  or  for  evil !  There 
is  nothing  like  this  in  Genesis. 

Nearly  all  the  rest  of  the  tablet  refers  to  the  moon 
and  its  duties.  It  is  to  beautify  the  night  and  to 
make  the  mouth.  To  the  moon  the  greatest  promi- 
nence is  given  by  the  writer  of  the  tablet,  for  to  the 
Chaldeans  the  month  was  not  only  the  most  natural 
division  of  time,  next  to  days,  but,  from  its  connec- 
tion with  religious  ceremonies,  the  most  important. 
Nothing,  therefore,  was  more  natural,  and  every  way 
fitting,  than  that,  in  a  cosmogony  manufactured  to 
meet  the  needs  of  their  religion  and  their  science,  the 
month  should  occupy  the  most  prominent  place ;  and 
so  it  does  in  the  Chaldean  story;  but  in  the  Genesis 
account  it  is  not  even  named.  It  is  incomprehensible 
that  a  Hebrew,  to  whom  the  month  was  of  as  great 
religious  importance  as  to  the  Chaldeans,  should  liave 
copied  their  account  and  omitted  all  about  that  meas- 
ure of  time.  What  has  been  said  about  the  character 
of  the  pliysical  statements  in  the  previous  tablets  ap- 
plies with  equal  force  to  this.  So  far  as  they  concern 
what  all  can  see  they  are  commonplace  platitudes. 
As  to  all  else,  they  are  absurd  fables. 

In  the  first  few  lines  there  is  the  setting  forth  of 
the  beginning  of  an  astronomj^,  or  rather  an  astrology, 
which  had  noted  the  year,  divided  the  stars  into  con- 
stellations, and  traced  the  paths  of  the  planets.     This 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION.        233 

is  of  value  as  evidence  that  men  had  beo-nn  to  study 
the  heavens  and  to  record  the  results  of  their  observa- 
tions, but  lias  nothing  to  do  with  any  thing  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis. 

The  tablet  also  tells  us  of  the  moon,  that  "  at  the 
beginning  of  the  month,  at  the  rising  of  the  night, 
its  horns  break  through  to  shine  in  the  heavens. 
On  the  seventh  day  it  begins  to  swell  to  a  circle,  and 
stretclies  farther  toward  the  dawn."  This  is  Mr. 
Smith's  version.  Professor  Sayce's  is  almost  unin- 
telligible. I  need  not  say  this,  too,  has  no  counter- 
part in  Genesis. 

Unfortunately,  the  rest  of  the  tablet  is  so  defaced 
that  little  can  be  made  of  it.  Enough  can  be  read  in 
Mr.  Smith's  version  to  show  tliat  it  tells  something 
about  the  sun-god.  But  according  to  Professor 
Sayce  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  thing  was  intended 
to  be  said  about  the  sun,  except  as  to  its  position  rela- 
tive to  tlie  moon.  Indeed,  the  Babylonians  honored 
the  moon  more  than  the  sun,  even  making  the  sun- 
god  the  child  of  the  moon-god.  It  was  natural,  there- 
fore, to  say  less  about  it. 

The  sixth  tablet  has  not  been  found. 

The  seventh  tablet.  "  This,"  Professor  Sayce  says, 
"  is  probably  represented  by  a  fragment  found  by  Mr. 
Smith  in  one  of  the  trenches  at  Kouyun  jik."  He  trans- 
lates it  as  follows.  The  differences  between  this  and 
Mr.  Smith's  and  Lenormant's  versions  are  unimportant. 


234  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

At  that  time  the  gods  in  their  assembly  created . . . 

They  made  suitable  (or  pleasing  or  excellent)  the  strong  mon- 
sters. . . 

Tliey  caused  to  come  living  creatures. . . 

Cattle  of  tjie  field,  beasts  of  the  field,  and  creeping  things  of  the 
field... 

They  fixed  for  the  living  creatures. . . 

. .  .cattle  and  creeping  things  of  the  city  they  fixed. , . 

. .  .the  assembly  of  the  creeping  things,  the  whole  which  were  cre- 
ated. . . 

. . .  which  in  the  assembly  of  my  family. . . 

. .  .and  the  god  Nin-si-ku  (the  lord  of  the  noble  face)  joined  the  two 
together. .  . 

. .  .to  the  assembly  of  the  creeping  things  I  gave  life. . . 

. . .  the  seed  of  Lakhamu  I  destroyed . . . 

In  this  fi-agment  is  to  be  seen  a  slight  verbal  re- 
semblance to  one  of  the  statements  in  Genesis.  The 
gods,  the  myth  says,  made  "  cattle,  beasts,  and  creep- 
ing things ; "  and  Genesis  says,  God  made  "  beasts, 
cattle,  and  creeping  things."  But  if  the  authors  of 
these  two  accounts  were  to  speak  of  land  animals  at 
all  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  they  could  avoid  that 
much  of  agreement.  The  latter  part  of  the  tablet  is 
so  badly  mutilated,  and,  in  its  present  condition,  so 
nearly  meaningless,  that  it  calls  for  no  remark. 

There  is  an  important  difference  which  runs  through 
the  two  accounts  to  which  I  have  already  alluded.  It 
shows  how  widely  their  respective  authors  differed  in 
the  manner  of  thinking  and  speaking,  the  one  of  his 
God,  the  other  of  his  gods.  In  Genesis  the  Deity 
is  represented  as  announcing  in  advance  his  work  in 
successive  fiats — "  God  said,  let  there  be  "  precedes 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION.        2S5 

each  creative  act;  and  when  the  fiat  has  been  obeyed 
God  surveys  his  work  and  pronounces  it  "good," 
But  all  through  these  myths  the  gods  are  dumb.  As 
blind  forces  they  do  certain  things  ;  but  they  utter  no 
fiat,  announce  no  purpose,  speak  no  approval. 

These  are  all  the  tablets  that,  with  any  great  prob- 
ability, can  be  said  to  belong  to  this  series.  There  is, 
however,  a  more  doubtful  fragment  which  Mr.  Smith 
thinks  belongs  here.  He  gives  it,  however,  under 
reserve.  Professor  Sayce  says:  "It  is  more  than 
doubtful  whether  it  has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  cre- 
ation tablets.  It  seems  rather  to  be  a  local  legend 
relating  to  Assur,  the  old  capital  of  Assyria,  and  pos- 
sibly recording  the  legend  of  its  foundation.  Bit-sarra 
(the  place  spoken  of  in  the  inscription)  or  E-sarra,  '  the 
temple  of  the  legions,'  was  dedicated  to  Ninip."  * 

I  copy  the  fragment  here  that  nothing  of  possible 
value  may  be  omitted:  I  give  Professor  Sayce's  ver- 
sion. Lenormant  says  he  knows  nothing  of  it,  and 
merely  quotes  Mr.  Smith's  rendering: 

The  god  Khir. .  .Si.  . . 

At  that  time  to  the  p:od. . . 

So  be  it,  I  concealed  thee . . . 

From  the  day  that  thou . . . 

Angry  thou  didst  speak. , . 

The  god  Assur  opened  liis  mouth  and  spake  to  the  god. . . 

Above  the  deep,  the  seat  of . . . 

In  front  of  Bit-sarra,  which  I  have  made . . . 

*  Chaldean  Genesis,  revised  edition,  p.  63. 


236  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

Below  the  place  I  strengtlien . . . 

Let  there  be  made  also  Bit-Lusu,  the  seat. . . 

Within  it  his  stronghold  may  he  build  and. . , 

At  that  time  from  the  deep  he  raised. . . 

The  place. .  .lifted  up  I  made. . . 

Above . . .  heaven . . . 

The  place. .  .lifted  up  thou  didst  make. 

. .  .the  city  of  Assur  the  temples  of  tlie  great  gods  .  .  .  his  father 

Anu . . . 

The  god. .  .thee  and  over  all  that  thy  Itand  has  made 

. .  .thee,  having  over  the  earth  whicii  thy  hand  lias  made 

, .  .having  Assur  which  tiioii  hast  called  its  name. 

Whatever  tliis  may  be,  it  has  no  comiection  with 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. 

Mr.  Smith  styles  this  account  "  The  Story  of  Crea- 
tion in  Days,"  and  others  liave  adopted  the  name. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  the  propriety  of  so  doing.  There 
is  no  allusion  in  it  to  days  in  connection  with  creative 
periods.  Tliere  is  nothing  like  the  Hebrew  order, 
first  day,  second  day,  third  day,  and  so  on.  Indeed, 
the  word  does  not  occur  in  any  sense,  except  once  in 
the  first  tablet,  where  it  says,  when  giving  the  origin 
of  the  gods,  "  Sar  and  Kisar  were  made  next.  The 
days  were  long,  a  long  (time  passed),  and  then  the 
gods  Anu,  Bel,  and  Ilea  were  born  of  Sar  and  Kisar."' 
Rev.  Mr.  Clieyne  says,  in  his  article  in  tlie  £nGi/clnjxed{a 
Britannica,  that  the  daj^  clauses  in  Genesis  are  inter- 
polations, but  of  this  he  offers  no  proof.  It  seems 
only  a  random  assertion  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty  in 
the  M^ay  of  a  favorite  theory. 

To  sum  up  the  whole  matter.     The  story  in  Gene- 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND   OF  CREATION.         237 

sis  and  that  on  the  tablets  have  the  following  points 
in  common :  1.  The  subjects  treated  of,  namely,  sun, 
moon,  stars,  earth,  and  animals  of  the  land.  2.  Cattle 
and  beasts  came  into  being  by  the  act  of  a  god. 
These  points  of  agreement  are  so  few  and  of  such  a 
character  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  write  a  cos- 
mogony without  them.  Hence  they  prove  nothing. 
The  differences  between  the  two  accounts  are  many 
and  vital.  The  Chaldean  is  almost  wholly  occupied 
with  the  genealogy  and  mythical  deeds  of  the  gods ; 
indeed,  it  seems  intended  for  a  theogony  rather  than 
a  cosmogony.  In  the  Hebrew  this  is  all  absent.  It 
opens  with  God  in  existence,  and  the  lieavens  and 
earth  not  in  existence.  The  Chaldean  is  just  the  op- 
posite. It  opens  with  heavens  and  earth  in  existence, 
and  the  gods  are  not  yet  made.  The  Hebrew  repre- 
sents God  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe.  The  Chal- 
dean represents  the  sea,  a  part  of  the  universe,  as 
producing  the  gods,  and  the  gods  not  as  creators,  but 
merely  as  givers  of  order  and  law  to  a  universe  in 
which  "  order  did  not  exist."  The  Hebrew  represents 
God  as  announcing  his  purposes  in  a  series  of  fiats. 
Tlie  Chaldean  gods  announce  nothing.  The  Hebrew 
repj'esents  God  as  himself  seeing  the  things  done  and 
pronouncing  them  "  good."  In  the  Chaldean  the  gods 
utter  no  verdict  of  approval  ;  where  it  does  occur  it 
is  the  writer,  and  not  the  deities,  who  pronounces 
the  mansions   "suitable."     The  Chaldean  tells  of  a 


238  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

time  wliei)  order  did  not  exist ;  the  Hebrew  tells  of  no 
such  time,  but  every-where  represents  matter,  like  a 
disciplined  cohort,  moving  to  the  word  of  its  com- 
mander. The  Hebrew  tells  ns  of  a  first  day  and  night. 
The  Cliaklean  regards  the  series  of  day  and  night  as 
eternal.  The  Hebrew  is  divided  into  stages  of  prog- 
ress separated  by  numbered  days.  The  Chaldean 
knows  nothing  of  numbered  days.  Genesis  makes  tlie 
year  to  depend  on  the  two  great  lights.  The  Chal- 
dean makes  it  depend  wholly  upon  tlie  stars.  In 
Genesis  the  stars  are  barely  mentioned.  In  the 
Clialdean  account  they  occupy  the  most  prominent 
position.  In  Genesis,  chapters  one  and  two,  the  month 
is  not  so  much  as  named.  In  the  myth  the  month  is 
the  chief  measure  of  time. 

These  differences,  I  submit,  are  not  only  profoundly 
important,  but  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  forbid  the 
belief  that  they  are  the  result  of  the  editing,  by  some 
skillful  monotheistic  redacteur,  of  the  story  of  the 
tablets.  There  is,  in  the  storj-  which  we  have,  nothing 
from  the  first  tablet.  The  second  fragment,  which  tells 
the  reader  that  the  foundation  of  the  caverns  is  made  of 
rock,  has  left  no  trace  of  itself  in  tlie  Hebrew  account. 
The  third  recovered  tablet  tells  of  a  god  who  made 
stairs  and  bolted  gates,  or  made  a  boiling  from  which 
the  moon  arose.  The  ancient  redacteur  has  not  incor- 
porated any  of  this,  nor,  indeed,  any  part  of  what  is  on 
the  tablet,  into  the  story  which  we  have  in  our  Bible. 


THE  BABYLONIAN  LEGEND  OF  CREATION.        239 

In  the  next  recovered  fragment  there  seetns  to  be  a 
statement  that  the  gods  made  cattle,  beasts,  and  creep- 
ing things.  A  similar  statement  is  found  in  our 
Genesis. 

And  this  is  all. 

Of  the  three  requirements  to  prove  the  Chaldean 
inscription  the  source  of  the  Hebrew  story  of  crea- 
tion, the  first,  priority,  is  very  doubtful ;  the  second, 
identity  of  subject,  although  questionable — for  the 
account  on  the  tablets  seems  to  be  intended  for  a  the- 
ogony  instead  of  a  cosmogony — may  be  admitted 
under  protest ;  while  the  third,  identity  of  statement, 
order,  and  thought,  is  wholly  lacking. 


240  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


THIS   ACCOUNT    NOT    THE   WORK   OF  SOME 
ANCIENT  SCIENTIST. 


There  lias  lately  fallen  under  my  observation  a 
little  book  intended  to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  Mosaic 
account  of  creation  when  viewed  from  a  scientific 
stand-point.  It  says  :  "  Present  it  to  us  as  the  specu- 
lation of  some  early  philosopher  who  strives  with  his 
limited  knowledge  to  conceive  how  the  universe  came 
into  its  present  condition,  and  we  can,  of  course,  accept 
it  as  such  and  treat  it  accordingly.  Taking  the  views 
that  were  held  by  the  people  generally  at  the  time  this 
story  was  written,  we  can  see  how  the  writer  came  to 
make  it  as  we  find  it.  The  earth  was  tlien  regarded 
as  the  most  important  body  in  the  universe  ;  the  stars 
were  shining  points,  and  the  sun  and  moon  about  as 
large  as  they  look  to  be ;  and  the  whole  account  re- 
flects this  view." 

The  reader  will  please  note  this  "  view."  Without 
doubt  it  did  really  prevail  among  the  most  advanced 
minds  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  all  men,  however  they 
may  regard  the  account  in  Genesis,  believe  that  it  did. 
But  when  it  is  seen  that  this  narrative  is  in  accordance 
with  the  most  advanced  science  of  the  present  day 
there  will  be  a  change  of  front  on  the  part  of  those 


NOT  THE  WOllK  OF  SOME  ANCIENT  SCIENTIST.    241 

who  can  believe  any  thing  but  a  rev^ehition.  We 
shall  then  be  told  that  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation 
is  only  the  embodiment  of  a  more  ancient  science. 
The  difficulties  which  arise  from  a  total  lack  of  histor- 
ical evidence  in  favor  of  such  an  hypothesis,  as  well  as 
from  the  abundant  evidence  to  the  contrary,  will  be 
avoided  by  claiming  that  this  knowledge  was  the  re- 
mains of  a  culture  which  had  become  so  lost  at  the  time 
when  Moses  wrote  that  he  himself  did  not  compre- 
hend it,  but  took  the  account  bodily  from  some  manu- 
script handed  down  from  an  inconceivably  more  remote 
period.  It  is  true  that  such  an  answer  involves  the 
objectors  in  the  difficult  task  of  harmonizing  with  it 
all  that  is  said  to  have  been  proved  about  man's  prog- 
ress from  the  paleolithic  age  and  the  cave  life ;  but 
this  is  an  obstacle  which  a  resolute  disbeliever  in  a 
revelation  can  easily  get  over  by  saying  that  very  little 
is  known  of  tlie  early  man,  and  that  perhaps  after  all 
he  lias  been  underrated.  It  will  be  amusing  to  see  how 
certain  writers  will  eat  their  own  words.  For  they 
must  admit  that  ability  to  relate  so  many  actual  occur- 
rences in  the  world's  history,  to  place  them  in  their 
proper  order,  and  to  divide  tlie  story  into  six  parts,  each 
corresponding  to  a  natural  and  philosophical  stage  of 
progress  in  the  liistory  of  tlie  world,  implies  on  the 
part  of  tlie  author  of  the  account — we  dare  not  say  how 
much  knowledge  of  astronom}^  and  geology,  the  rela- 
tion of  li2;ht  to  motion,  and  the  revelations  of  the 


242.  GENESIS  I.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

spectroscope.  To  maintain  that  some  ancient  people, 
of  whom  not  the  slightest  trace  remains,  attained 
snch  height  of  knowledge,  we  must  assume  that  in  the 
hitherto  unlieard-of  past  tliere  was  reached  a  progress 
in  science  sucli  as  has  only  lately  been  gained  by 
moderns. 

Sucli  progress  was  impossible  without  modern  meth- 
ods and  appliances.  There  was  needed  a  system  of  nota- 
tion and  numeration  equivalent  to  that  which  we  enjoy, 
together  with  a  calcnlns  wliich  anticipated  Newton's, 
and  logarithms  thousands  of  years  before  Napier's, 
as  well  as  telescopes  and  spectroscopes  and  instru- 
ments of  precision.  There  are  indications,  also,  of  a 
knowledge  of  geography,  botany,  and  geology.  All 
this  could  be  gained  oidy  by  the  co-operation  of  many 
individuals,  not  in  one  or  two  localities,  but  over  the 
world.  Hence  this  ancient  and  most  remarkable  peo- 
ple must  liave  had  the  means  of  communication  with 
otlier  peoples.  The  necessaiy  observations  could  not 
have  been  made  in  a  single  life-time,  and  therefore 
they  needed  to  be  preserved  and  in  some  way  made 
accessible  to  all  who  desired  to  labor  upon  them  and 
deduce  their  proper  teachings  ;  for  in  no  other  way 
could  any  great  amount  of  information  be  got  out  of 
them.  Hence  the  art  of  printing,  or  some  equivalent, 
was  essential.  In  short,  the  power  to  write  this  chap- 
ter required  on  the  part  of  its  author  our  present 
science  and  all  that  that  implies. 


NOT  THE  WORK  OF  SOME  ANCIENT  SCIENTIST.    243 

But  all  this  may  be  claimed  for  that  ancient  civili- 
zation, since,  according  to  our  objector,  no  one  knows 
how  long  man  has  existed,  and  therefore  no  one  can 
say  how  many  civilizations  have  culminated  and  per- 
ished. Such  arguments,  being  unhampered  by  facts, 
may  assume  a  thousand  forms.  ISTor  will  it  be  deemed 
an  answer  to  remind  the  objector  that  his  present 
position  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  his  former  teach- 
ings. The  inconsistency  will  neither  silence  nor  abash 
him.  His  arguments  can  be  effectually  met  only  by 
the  internal  evidence  of  the  account  itself. 

A  careful  analysis  will  show  that  it  could  not  have 
been  written  by  one  who  obtained  his  knowledge  as 
scientists  obtain  theirs.  They  must  ascend  by  gener- 
alization, rising  from  particulars  to  universals,  reach- 
ing step  by  step  from  the  known  to  the  unknown. 
Hence,  by  the  very  nature  and  requirement  of  makiii^ 
progress  at  all,  they  acquire  the  habit  of  looking  only 
to  physical  causes,  and  through  phenomena  to  some 
general  law  that  binds  them  into  forms  and  groups 
which  a  finite  mind  can  remember  and  handle. 
Therefore  one  of  their  greatest  needs  is  the  mnemo- 
techny  of  an  exact  and  copious  terminology,  the  lack 
of  which  would  render  progress,  beyond  moderate 
limits,  impossible,  for  the  mind  would  break  down 
under  the  burden  of  an  infinite  number  of  unclassified 
facts. 

In  this  account  there  are  none  of  those  peculiarities 


244  GENESIS  J.  AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 

which  mark  the  scientific  mind ;  no  generalizations  • 
no  laws;  no  nnclerlying  causes;  no  deductions;  no 
special  terminology.  The  writer  passes  at  a  step 
beyond  and  through  all  laws  to  the  Intelligent  Cause 
whose  personality  so  permeates  every  verse  as  to  ren- 
der its  elimination  impossible.  His  language  is  as  op- 
posite to  technical  as  can  be  conceived  ;  but  while  it  is 
phenomenal  it  is  more  than  the  phenomenal  descrip- 
tion of  a  mere  eye-witness.  It  bears  in  itself  evidence 
of  being  the  work  of  One  who  exhaustively  under- 
stood the  import  and  the  order  of  all  phenomena,  and 
from  an  iniinite  abundance  selected  those  suited  to 
his  purpose.  These  he  has  recorded  in  accurate  lan- 
guage, leaving  the  reader  to  derive  from  them  all 
that  his  capabilities  permit.  He  says  nothing  of  the 
nebular  hypothesis,  but  he  says  that  once  the  earth 
w^as  without  form  and  void ;  nothing  of  the  correla- 
tion of  forces,  and  nothing  of  their  relation  to  light, 
but  he  places  the  beginning  of  motion  between  the 
primordial  darkness  and  the  first  light ;  nothing  of 
the  earth's  long  progress  through  self-luminous  periods 
to  its  present  condition,  a  solid  opaque  planet,  but  he 
names  the  fact  that  marks  the  close  of  the  one  condi- 
tion and  the  beginning  of  the  other,  a  fact  that  fits 
in  nowhere  else.  In  short,  every  word  and  every 
phrase  indicates  a  knowledge  not  cramped  within  the 
narrow  limits  of  scientific  formulas,  but  as  free  and 
suggestive  as  Nature  herself. 


NOT  THE  WORK  OF  SOME  ANCIENT  SCIENTIST.    245 

To  believe  that  such  a  statement  as  this  is  the  frag- 
ment of  some  ancient  work  evolved,  as  are  now 
astrunomy,  geology,  and  other  sciences,  by  the  slow 
collection  and  stndy  of  facts,  does  violence  to  the  laws 
of  our  mental  being. 


THE    EXD. 


Date  Due 

, 

1 

1 
i 

<|) 

